On 10/25/19 8:55 AM, Neil C Smith wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 16:02, Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> wrote:
So anyone can step up coordinate and do a patch release of some modules
if the community approves that. When we are releasing the whole IDE the
RM has one orientation: the whole IDE.
I'm -1 to voting on patch sources vs a whole IDE patch release (even
if +1 to anyone else RM'ing it! ;-) ). I think the way that the patch
release was done previously would be difficult to achieve with the new
build system. We need to ensure that even patch releases end up with
consistent build numbers / git hash info. I also think the patch
voting was more complicated for voters, and "awkward" from an Apache
compatibility point of view. Hence suggesting we still do a vote on
the full sources built on netbeans-TLP, but only nominate required
binaries.
Well, I'm not pushing for the partial source release/vote. You put
tremendous effort in the new pipeline to work, I very much believe that
it is easier, more reliable and safer to vote on the whole source and
nominate the required binaries.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 14:01, Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Probably the ugliest part was the actual release of the nbms. In the
future we could create a separate update center for release updates and
ship that configured in the release. I think the new plugin portal
infrastructure probably could help, if that'd support multi tenancy.
Good point on the ugly part! Although again I'd vote -1 on splitting
the UC for the distribution in two. Mainly from a downstream
distribution / derivative perspective - enlightened self interest at
play there! :-)
However, we do serve the catalog from the VM, and the catalog can have
absolute rather than relative links, meaning we don't need to serve
the updated artefacts themselves the same way.
Still, the other thing we need to keep in mind is that we may be
starting to ship installers that can install specific clusters. One
way of upgrading such a release later is to install another cluster
via UC? Not having them signed / having multiple centres may also be
a problem there.
I'm not sure I get this, but I think that would be explained in more
detail. Let's listen for other ideas as well...
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
