[feedhenry-dev] feedhenry-dev Digest, Vol 16, Issue 60

Thu Oct 26 07:56:21 UTC 2017

I think what you have outlined is great for our development releases,
Matthias. If we haven't already we should update the doc.

On the single repo, yes no git submodules, but I am big fan of it being in
a single repo allow visibility for everything mcp that it happening and
then syncing to separate repos for releases but as mentioned this is
something we can get together and discuss as the f2f

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, <feedhenry-dev-request at redhat.com> wrote:

> Send feedhenry-dev mailing list submissions to
>         feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         feedhenry-dev-request at redhat.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         feedhenry-dev-owner at redhat.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of feedhenry-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process (Matthias Wessendorf)
>    2. Re: RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process (Phil Brookes)
>    3. Re: RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process (Matthias Wessendorf)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:20:30 +0200
> From: Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend at redhat.com>
> To: feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> Subject: [feedhenry-dev] RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process
> Message-ID:
>         <CAKUFdH1rt9y6Sirua0UxcsW6Ux+gO+xfP311=r5UAaJ5RPWcGg at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> as a follow up on [1], here are some thoughts on the MCP release itself.
>
> The raw process is described here:
> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_
> Process/docs/Release.md#mcp-release
>
> The first part is trivial (but not complete), we simply create a TAGGED
> (versioned) image, and push it to docker. Afterwards the mcp-standalone in
> dockerhub is updated.
>
> What's missing here is creation of a canonical TAG in git, more later;
>
> Now, the (three) dependent APBs of the MCP also need to be released. This
> requires a bit of manual steps, as described here:
> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_
> Process/docs/Release.md#mcp-included-apbs
>
> 1) manual modify the openshift template (which is included in the dependent
> APBs)
> 2) creating image tags and pushing all to dockerhub (-> make apbs )
>
>
> In 2) we also modify code, by copying the template over, for that I've
> added a "release" commit in the Makefile target:
> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/commit/
> 8d693cc6b2d58d9a2d83e33ea6cf9e31ce8bcac5
>
> But we still have a locally modified file on the disk (the original
> openshift template). This is bad.
> The changes to the template must be committed before we can actually move
> on. To enforce that, I've added the following to the "make apbs" target:
> https://github.com/feedhenry/mcp-standalone/commit/
> 260fd86868e7d12fb33197bf1ca9672a2f7d4b1a#commitcomment-25186889
>
> if there are not committed files, the "make apbs" fails- this is inspired
> by the awesome ;-) Maven Release Plugin.
>
> As the last step, after the different pushes to dockerhub (mcp-standalone
> and its dependent APBs), we must create a release tag in git, and push it.
>
> Only with these "rules" (e.g. no locally modified files, and proper release
> tags, we end up having both in sync dockerhub images, and the matching TAG
> in git)
>
> I think these new rules help to get a more solid release, and with a bit of
> work can be applied by some "release script"
>
> But before hacking too much, I am generally interested in feedback on these
> already committed changes.
>
> Thanks!
> Matthias
>
>
> [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/2017-
> October/msg00114.html
>
>
> --
> Project lead AeroGear.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/
> attachments/20171025/68d2a0d3/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:43:13 +0100
> From: Phil Brookes <pbrookes at redhat.com>
> To: Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend at redhat.com>
> Cc: feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [feedhenry-dev] RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process
> Message-ID:
>         <CAKY3PU2PvFvG_KwW5dDhGpEiZF8W+Frb1rUy0PUxPYt+t1QovA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hey Matthias,
>
> Now, the (three) dependent APBs of the MCP also need to be released. This
> > requires a bit of manual steps, as described here:
> > https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_
> > Process/docs/Release.md#mcp-included-apbs
> >
> > 1) manual modify the openshift template (which is included in the
> > dependent APBs)
> > 2) creating image tags and pushing all to dockerhub (-> make apbs )
> >
>
> If the APBs that are currently included in the mcp-standalone repo were in
> their own separate repos (just like keycloak, 3scale, etc are currently)
> would that remove the requirement for these manual steps?
> ? I think it would be superior if we could have a standard workflow that
> all APBs follow, rather than some APBs working one way and some working
> another and requiring developers to remember which is which.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil.?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > as a follow up on [1], here are some thoughts on the MCP release itself.
> >
> > The raw process is described here:
> > https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_
> > Process/docs/Release.md#mcp-release
> >
> > The first part is trivial (but not complete), we simply create a TAGGED
> > (versioned) image, and push it to docker. Afterwards the mcp-standalone
> in
> > dockerhub is updated.
> >
> > What's missing here is creation of a canonical TAG in git, more later;
> >
> > Now, the (three) dependent APBs of the MCP also need to be released. This
> > requires a bit of manual steps, as described here:
> > https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_
> > Process/docs/Release.md#mcp-included-apbs
> >
> > 1) manual modify the openshift template (which is included in the
> > dependent APBs)
> > 2) creating image tags and pushing all to dockerhub (-> make apbs )
> >
> >
> > In 2) we also modify code, by copying the template over, for that I've
> > added a "release" commit in the Makefile target:
> > https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/commit/
> > 8d693cc6b2d58d9a2d83e33ea6cf9e31ce8bcac5
> >
> > But we still have a locally modified file on the disk (the original
> > openshift template). This is bad.
> > The changes to the template must be committed before we can actually move
> > on. To enforce that, I've added the following to the "make apbs" target:
> > https://github.com/feedhenry/mcp-standalone/commit/
> > 260fd86868e7d12fb33197bf1ca9672a2f7d4b1a#commitcomment-25186889
> >
> > if there are not committed files, the "make apbs" fails- this is inspired
> > by the awesome ;-) Maven Release Plugin.
> >
> > As the last step, after the different pushes to dockerhub (mcp-standalone
> > and its dependent APBs), we must create a release tag in git, and push
> it.
> >
> > Only with these "rules" (e.g. no locally modified files, and proper
> > release tags, we end up having both in sync dockerhub images, and the
> > matching TAG in git)
> >
> > I think these new rules help to get a more solid release, and with a bit
> > of work can be applied by some "release script"
> >
> > But before hacking too much, I am generally interested in feedback on
> > these already committed changes.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Matthias
> >
> >
> > [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/2017-
> > October/msg00114.html
> >
> >
> > --
> > Project lead AeroGear.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > feedhenry-dev mailing list
> > feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/
> attachments/20171026/6dfa87dc/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:52:05 +0200
> From: Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend at redhat.com>
> To: Phil Brookes <pbrookes at redhat.com>
> Cc: feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [feedhenry-dev] RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process
> Message-ID:
>         <CAKUFdH3RTEHKW+ESRJcF7_9jz1LRvKMMwxPgFuXve+8tvbzHoA@
> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Phil Brookes <pbrookes at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Matthias,
> >
> > Now, the (three) dependent APBs of the MCP also need to be released. This
> >> requires a bit of manual steps, as described here:
> >> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_Proces
> >> s/docs/Release.md#mcp-included-apbs
> >>
> >> 1) manual modify the openshift template (which is included in the
> >> dependent APBs)
> >> 2) creating image tags and pushing all to dockerhub (-> make apbs )
> >>
> >
> > If the APBs that are currently included in the mcp-standalone repo were
> in
> > their own separate repos (just like keycloak, 3scale, etc are currently)
> > would that remove the requirement for these manual steps?
> >
>
> no - these three guys (android, ios, cordova) are special ABPs :-) They are
> MCPs, and they need the updated template.
> With a separated repo, they would each need a PR to get the updated
> version.
>
>
>
> > ? I think it would be superior if we could have a standard workflow that
> > all APBs follow, rather than some APBs working one way and some working
> > another and requiring developers to remember which is which.
> >
>
> So yeah, I think these three are a bit special :)
>
> BTW. yesterday on IRC Craig suggested at our F2F in a couple of weeks we
> all sit down and discuss a good approach for this. He mentione kubernetes,
> where different things are in their own repos, but sync'd to the main one
> (no damn gitsubmodules)
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phil.?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <
> mwessend at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> as a follow up on [1], here are some thoughts on the MCP release itself.
> >>
> >> The raw process is described here:
> >> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_Proces
> >> s/docs/Release.md#mcp-release
> >>
> >> The first part is trivial (but not complete), we simply create a TAGGED
> >> (versioned) image, and push it to docker. Afterwards the mcp-standalone
> in
> >> dockerhub is updated.
> >>
> >> What's missing here is creation of a canonical TAG in git, more later;
> >>
> >> Now, the (three) dependent APBs of the MCP also need to be released.
> This
> >> requires a bit of manual steps, as described here:
> >> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/blob/Release_Proces
> >> s/docs/Release.md#mcp-included-apbs
> >>
> >> 1) manual modify the openshift template (which is included in the
> >> dependent APBs)
> >> 2) creating image tags and pushing all to dockerhub (-> make apbs )
> >>
> >>
> >> In 2) we also modify code, by copying the template over, for that I've
> >> added a "release" commit in the Makefile target:
> >> https://github.com/matzew/mcp-standalone/commit/8d693cc6b2d5
> >> 8d9a2d83e33ea6cf9e31ce8bcac5
> >>
> >> But we still have a locally modified file on the disk (the original
> >> openshift template). This is bad.
> >> The changes to the template must be committed before we can actually
> move
> >> on. To enforce that, I've added the following to the "make apbs" target:
> >> https://github.com/feedhenry/mcp-standalone/commit/260fd8686
> >> 8e7d12fb33197bf1ca9672a2f7d4b1a#commitcomment-25186889
> >>
> >> if there are not committed files, the "make apbs" fails- this is
> inspired
> >> by the awesome ;-) Maven Release Plugin.
> >>
> >> As the last step, after the different pushes to dockerhub
> (mcp-standalone
> >> and its dependent APBs), we must create a release tag in git, and push
> it.
> >>
> >> Only with these "rules" (e.g. no locally modified files, and proper
> >> release tags, we end up having both in sync dockerhub images, and the
> >> matching TAG in git)
> >>
> >> I think these new rules help to get a more solid release, and with a bit
> >> of work can be applied by some "release script"
> >>
> >> But before hacking too much, I am generally interested in feedback on
> >> these already committed changes.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/2017-Octob
> >> er/msg00114.html
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Project lead AeroGear.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> feedhenry-dev mailing list
> >> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Project lead AeroGear.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/
> attachments/20171026/37a80476/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> feedhenry-dev mailing list
> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
>
>
> End of feedhenry-dev Digest, Vol 16, Issue 60
> *********************************************
>

-- 
Craig Brookes
RHMAP
@maleck13 Github
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/attachments/20171026/1a7c6098/attachment.htm>