Sorry, I was referring to the mirroring of the ASF repos.

A



On May 11, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

> Which "this" are you referring to? :)
> 
> On Friday, May 10, 2013, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> 
>> So I may be missing something, but there isn't a way to do this
>> automatically, without an update script we own running on some box we
>> control, is there?
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 10, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I was a little more concerned about this before seeing that we don't
>> actually have many RAT license violations outside of incubator-jclouds-labs
>> - but we have quite a few there. We need to remember that any release
>> coming out of ASF has to pass license criteria, etc, so we'll have to deal
>> with missing licenses/dependencies we can't use/etc in all branches we want
>> to release, not just master onward.
>>> 
>>> A.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> This thread got long, so I figure it best to paraphrase where we ended
>> up.
>>> 
>>> We will release 1.5.x and 1.6.x releases from our ASF repos.  It is
>> likely
>>> that our first ASF release will be 1.6.1, and we've probably a couple
>> weeks
>>> before timing of this becomes critical.
>>> 
>>> There's a distribution implication of this that was probably not realized
>>> by everyone.  Although I'm ok with the implication, I think everyone
>> should
>>> bear below in mind.
>>> 
>>> ASF releases are published to ASF repositories as opposed to sonatype.
>> In
>>> Sonatype, we publish to the group id org.jclouds.  In ASF we need to
>>> publish to org.apache.jclouds.
>>> 
>>> When these jars are published, users will need to change their
>> dependencies
>>> like below:
>>> 
>>>  compile     'org.jclouds.provider:dynect:1.6.0'
>>>  compile     'org.apache.jclouds.provider:dynect:1.6.1'
>>> 
>>> There are folks that use wildcard versions, or version properties, etc.
>>> that would have maintenance to do to change the groupid that 1.6.1 now
>>> correlates to.  In other words, changing group ids will be at least a
>> small
>>> pain for a patch release, and likely lead to at least a question or two
>> on
>>> the user list about some classpath problem.
>>> 
>>> My personal take is that the potential classpath problem for those who
>> have
>>> old and new versions is inevitable.  It will happen in 1.7 or 1.6, and
>> heck
>>> even happens without a groupId change often enough.  I also feel like
>>> changing this sooner is better.  That said there's more to it.  I
>>> personally am disinterested in the extra overhead we'd need to have 2
>>> different release processes.  It would be one thing if jclouds had a
>>> company staffed to do releases, but we aren't.  Choosing to optimize
>>> for multiple distributions has high impact for us, so we should be
>> careful
>>> about that.
>>> 
>>> If we wanted to continue to publish to the old ids, I'd probably prefer
>>> this as a secondary task.  For example, we could upload a org.jclouds dir
>>> to sonatype after renaming the directories and a recursive sed to apply
>> the
>>> old group id.  In other words, it is far easier to republish a dist to
>> the
>>> old group id ad-hoc than maintaining parallel build infrastructure.
>>> 
>>> In summary, doing an efficient 1.6.1 in ASF comes with a little baggage:
>>> either a dual-publish or a concession of slight pom break.  Even-though
>> the
>>> code we are distributing will be compatible, we should be aware that the
>>> build side of things has impact.
>>> 
>>> -A
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the offer!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I'll make a run at it this weekend.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any volunteers able to see this through?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-13
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmai

Reply via email to