[aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Jay Balunas
Hi All,

We've been making a lot of progress on sync, but as many of you likely already know it is not ready for a full focused release. Much like encryption, sync is a significant feature and is still in active R&D and likely needs multiple iterations given its complexity.  Its much better to let this mature organically that force it out the door before its out of diapers :-)  

So with that said, I propose postponing the planned January umbrella release.  I think we should revisit our roadmaps and plans during this time, before trying to set new release dates.  While we do this we should make sure to add in time for updates to docs, examples, getting started items, site, cookbooks, etc...  

Thoughts?

Jay
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Bruno Oliveira
IMO we should postpone it to March to get something more stable, meanwhile I would vote to release small features (but unstable) on snapshots for testing.

--
abstractj

On January 17, 2014 at 2:53:13 PM, Jay Balunas ([hidden email]) wrote:
> > So with that said, I propose postponing the planned January
> umbrella release.

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Matthias Wessendorf
In reply to this post by Jay Balunas



On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Jay Balunas <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

We've been making a lot of progress on sync, but as many of you likely already know it is not ready for a full focused release. Much like encryption, sync is a significant feature and is still in active R&D and likely needs multiple iterations given its complexity.  Its much better to let this mature organically that force it out the door before its out of diapers :-)

yeah, makes sense; Let's not rush on a specific release date, while R&D is actively going on.
 

So with that said, I propose postponing the planned January umbrella release.  

+1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine as well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing reasons. I like that: Release often, release early.

 
I think we should revisit our roadmaps and plans during this time, before trying to set new release dates.  While we do this we should make sure to add in time for updates to docs, examples, getting started items, site, cookbooks, etc...

good point as well, it needs to have a 'good' user experience and should be easy to get started with

-Matthias

 

Thoughts?

Jay
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Karel Piwko
> +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine as
> well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
> should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing reasons.
> I like that: Release often, release early.

What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on that?

Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear projects?
Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or introducing
-milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into version
strings?

I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are released
early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if various
SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each other and used
within other projects.

Karel
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Matthias Wessendorf



On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine as
> well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
> should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing reasons.
> I like that: Release often, release early.

What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on that?

I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the snapshot repo
 

Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear projects?
Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or introducing
-milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into version
strings?

I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are released
early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if various
SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each other and used
within other projects.

Karel
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Karel Piwko
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine as
> > > well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
> > > should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing
> > reasons.
> > > I like that: Release often, release early.
> >
> > What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on that?
> >
>
> I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the snapshot
> repo

That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update snaphot and
other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It would be
much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in previous email.

>
>
> >
> > Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear
> > projects?
> > Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or
> > introducing
> > -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into version
> > strings?
> >
> > I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are
> > released
> > early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if various
> > SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each other and
> > used
> > within other projects.
> >
> > Karel
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Matthias Wessendorf


On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
Matthias Wessendorf <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;matzew@apache.org&#39;)">matzew@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;kpiwko@redhat.com&#39;)">kpiwko@...> wrote:
>
> > > +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine as
> > > well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
> > > should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing
> > reasons.
> > > I like that: Release often, release early.
> >
> > What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on that?
> >
>
> I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the snapshot
> repo

That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update snaphot and
other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It would be
much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in previous email.

Well, this is all early and understood, not why thats a problem, when DEVELOPING something...


 

>
>
> >
> > Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear
> > projects?
> > Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or
> > introducing
> > -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into version
> > strings?
> >
> > I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are
> > released
> > early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if various
> > SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each other and
> > used
> > within other projects.
> >
> > Karel
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@...
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@...
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Karel Piwko
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:17:00 +0100
Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
> > Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko
> > > <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine
> > as
> > > > > well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
> > > > > should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing
> > > > reasons.
> > > > > I like that: Release often, release early.
> > > >
> > > > What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on
> > that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the snapshot
> > > repo
> >
> > That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update snaphot
> > and
> > other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It would
> > be
> > much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in previous
> > email.
>
>
> Well, this is all early and understood, not why thats a problem, when
> DEVELOPING something...
>

That's right. But when testing something it is a problem. We don't have a
bandwidth to update tests every time something get's broken due to new
SNAPSHOT being released to repository. OTOH, updating tests after all projects
are released as Final is too late. I'm looking for some model in between to let
us keep pace with devs.

>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear
> > > > projects?
> > > > Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or
> > > > introducing
> > > > -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into
> > version
> > > > strings?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are
> > > > released
> > > > early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if
> > various
> > > > SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each other
> > and
> > > > used
> > > > within other projects.
> > > >
> > > > Karel
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Matthias Wessendorf


On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:17:00 +0100
Matthias Wessendorf <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;matzew@apache.org&#39;)">matzew@...> wrote:

> On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;kpiwko@redhat.com&#39;)">kpiwko@...> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
> > Matthias Wessendorf <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;matzew@apache.org&#39;)">matzew@... <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko
> > > <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;kpiwko@redhat.com&#39;)">kpiwko@...<javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine
> > as
> > > > > well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
> > > > > should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing
> > > > reasons.
> > > > > I like that: Release often, release early.
> > > >
> > > > What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on
> > that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the snapshot
> > > repo
> >
> > That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update snaphot
> > and
> > other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It would
> > be
> > much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in previous
> > email.
>
>
> Well, this is all early and understood, not why thats a problem, when
> DEVELOPING something...
>

That's right. But when testing something it is a problem. We don't have a
bandwidth to update tests every time something get's broken due to new
SNAPSHOT being released to repository. OTOH, updating tests after all projects
are released as Final is too late. I'm looking for some model in between to let
us keep pace with devs.

Well, when something is under heavy development, like ALL the sync things, it makes sense to do snapshots; when things(e.g protocol, server etc) changes, sure we will update our unit tests and adjust the clients; thats basically the development of sync;

You talking about integration tests or what? 



 

>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear
> > > > projects?
> > > > Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or
> > > > introducing
> > > > -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into
> > version
> > > > strings?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are
> > > > released
> > > > early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if
> > various
> > > > SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each other
> > and
> > > > used
> > > > within other projects.
> > > >
> > > > Karel
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@... <javascript:;>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@... <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org&#39;)">aerogear-dev@...
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Karel Piwko
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:41:23 +0100
Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:17:00 +0100
> > Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko
> > > > > <[hidden email] <javascript:;><javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be
> > fine
> > > > as
> > > > > > > well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed
> > release
> > > > > > > should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for
> > testing
> > > > > > reasons.
> > > > > > > I like that: Release often, release early.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light
> > on
> > > > that?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the
> > snapshot
> > > > > repo
> > > >
> > > > That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update
> > snaphot
> > > > and
> > > > other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in
> > previous
> > > > email.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, this is all early and understood, not why thats a problem, when
> > > DEVELOPING something...
> > >
> >
> > That's right. But when testing something it is a problem. We don't have a
> > bandwidth to update tests every time something get's broken due to new
> > SNAPSHOT being released to repository. OTOH, updating tests after all
> > projects
> > are released as Final is too late. I'm looking for some model in between
> > to let
> > us keep pace with devs.
>
>
> Well, when something is under heavy development, like ALL the sync things,
> it makes sense to do snapshots; when things(e.g protocol, server etc)
> changes, sure we will update our unit tests and adjust the clients; thats
> basically the development of sync;
>
> You talking about integration tests or what?

Exactly. Integration tests, especially that ones that test more Aerogear
projects combined together.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear
> > > > > > projects?
> > > > > > Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or
> > > > > > introducing
> > > > > > -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into
> > > > version
> > > > > > strings?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are
> > > > > > released
> > > > > > early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if
> > > > various
> > > > > > SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each
> > other
> > > > and
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > within other projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karel
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Matthias Wessendorf



On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:41:23 +0100
Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:17:00 +0100
> > Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, January 20, 2014, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]<javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko
> > > > > <[hidden email] <javascript:;><javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be
> > fine
> > > > as
> > > > > > > well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed
> > release
> > > > > > > should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for
> > testing
> > > > > > reasons.
> > > > > > > I like that: Release often, release early.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light
> > on
> > > > that?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the
> > snapshot
> > > > > repo
> > > >
> > > > That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update
> > snaphot
> > > > and
> > > > other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in
> > previous
> > > > email.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, this is all early and understood, not why thats a problem, when
> > > DEVELOPING something...
> > >
> >
> > That's right. But when testing something it is a problem. We don't have a
> > bandwidth to update tests every time something get's broken due to new
> > SNAPSHOT being released to repository. OTOH, updating tests after all
> > projects
> > are released as Final is too late. I'm looking for some model in between
> > to let
> > us keep pace with devs.
>
>
> Well, when something is under heavy development, like ALL the sync things,
> it makes sense to do snapshots; when things(e.g protocol, server etc)
> changes, sure we will update our unit tests and adjust the clients; thats
> basically the development of sync;
>
> You talking about integration tests or what?

Exactly. Integration tests, especially that ones that test more Aerogear
projects combined together.

well, to be honest, as long as we don't really know what the server is, how the client APIs look like (e.g 0.0.1-SNAPSHOT, 0.0.2-SNAPSHOT) it's pointless to actually do that.

 

>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear
> > > > > > projects?
> > > > > > Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or
> > > > > > introducing
> > > > > > -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into
> > > > version
> > > > > > strings?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are
> > > > > > released
> > > > > > early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if
> > > > various
> > > > > > SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each
> > other
> > > > and
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > within other projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karel
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Karel Piwko
>
> well, to be honest, as long as we don't really know what the server is, how
> the client APIs look like (e.g 0.0.1-SNAPSHOT, 0.0.2-SNAPSHOT) it's
> pointless to actually do that.


In such case, how do you want us to proceed with updating integration tests?
How do you guys feel about releasing a few (1 or 2) SNAPSHOT sets marked as
non-snapshots (beta) till you reach finals? If the dev is going to take 2+
months or so, I would hate to be stale in test dev and catch all later on. Yet,
I don't want to rewrite tests back and forth more times then twice.
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
qmx
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

qmx
Administrator
In reply to this post by Karel Piwko
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:39:52PM +0100, Karel Piwko wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
> Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > > +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine as
> > > > well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
> > > > should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing
> > > reasons.
> > > > I like that: Release often, release early.
> > >
> > > What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on that?
> > >
> >
> > I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the snapshot
> > repo
>
> That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update snaphot and
> other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It would be
> much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in previous email.

Well, that's how snapshots work. We can't fix people not getting it,
unfortunately :(

--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Summers Pittman
In reply to this post by Karel Piwko
On 01/20/2014 06:39 AM, Karel Piwko wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
> Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>> +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should be fine as
>>>> well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed release
>>>> should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots for testing
>>> reasons.
>>>> I like that: Release often, release early.
>>> What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more light on that?
>>>
>> I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to the snapshot
>> repo
> That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update snaphot and
> other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that. It would be
> much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described in previous email.
So from my POV I don't mind code SNAPSHOTS always breaking.  One of the
problems with having several machines and locations to work from is
keeping the code up to date.  Because the Android project is in flux
based on upstream AND downstream projects (IE demos I'm writing to
exercise the APIs) it is very very nice to have something I can look at
and play with.

I understand a side effect of this is I will have to rewrite code, but
in my instance I'm usually rewriting code based on code changes I made.

Maybe we can do the Google thing and we have to rewrite tests we break?
(/me Waits for the flood of -1's)

>
>>
>>> Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of Aerogear
>>> projects?
>>> Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT? Or
>>> introducing
>>> -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like into version
>>> strings?
>>>
>>> I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs are
>>> released
>>> early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare, if various
>>> SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from each other and
>>> used
>>> within other projects.
>>>
>>> Karel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] AeroGear January sync release postponed

Bruno Oliveira
Snapshots are unstable by definition, period. If necessary release anything for testing will be necessary, well this was supposed to be done after we reach a consensus at whatever feature.

--
abstractj

On January 20, 2014 at 12:07:44 PM, Summers Pittman ([hidden email]) wrote:

>
> On 01/20/2014 06:39 AM, Karel Piwko wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:27:22 +0100
> > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Karel Piwko
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> +1 on postponing to a later point. If ready by April, should
> be fine as
> >>>> well (my opinion). Bruno had a good point, that the postponed
> release
> >>>> should not stop us from releasing (unstable) snapshots
> for testing
> >>> reasons.
> >>>> I like that: Release often, release early.
> >>> What is actually an (unstable) snapshot? Could you shed more
> light on that?
> >>>
> >> I'd say a regular snapshot, from master branch, released to
> the snapshot
> >> repo
> > That's good until another project(s) will rely on it. You update
> snaphot and
> > other projects will get broken without any option to avoid that.
> It would be
> > much better to make snapshots stable in time, as I described
> in previous email.
> So from my POV I don't mind code SNAPSHOTS always breaking. One
> of the
> problems with having several machines and locations to work
> from is
> keeping the code up to date. Because the Android project is in
> flux
> based on upstream AND downstream projects (IE demos I'm writing
> to
> exercise the APIs) it is very very nice to have something I can
> look at
> and play with.
>
> I understand a side effect of this is I will have to rewrite code,
> but
> in my instance I'm usually rewriting code based on code changes
> I made.
>
> Maybe we can do the Google thing and we have to rewrite tests we
> break?
> (/me Waits for the flood of -1's)
> >
> >>
> >>> Namely, is the "snapshot" a set of micro/minor releases of
> Aerogear
> >>> projects?
> >>> Or do you plan to release every Aerogear project as -SNAPSHOT?
> Or
> >>> introducing
> >>> -milestone/.Mx/alpha/beta/cr/timestamp/any-qualifier-you-like
> into version
> >>> strings?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think 2/ option is a good idea, especially if SNAPSHOTs
> are
> >>> released
> >>> early & often. That would be a maintenance/testing nightmare,
> if various
> >>> SNAPSHOTs of the same project cannot be distinguished from
> each other and
> >>> used
> >>> within other projects.
> >>>
> >>> Karel
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> aerogear-dev mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev 
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev 
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev