Re: SF Anon Server issue- HELP!!! (was Re: Keel Newbie

Steve:

Wow - I was unaware of this problem, but it does sound nasty. I thought
SF had all that sync stuff sorted out, but of course I don't test it
regularly as I'm using a logged-in account.

On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 21:52, Stephen Davidson wrote:
> Hey Mike, Shash!  HELP!
> 
> I just tried rechecking out a clean keel-client module.  The latest 
> revision available in SF CVS Anon is 1.10, from Feb 15.  Version 1.11 
> does NOT show up when I 'log' the file 
> AbstractWebappClientConnector.java on J2EEGuys.com.  Furthur, there is 
> no commit/change on Feb 6/2005.  Umm, just did some deeper digging.    
> Aomething real flaky is going on.  The change logs do no match between 
> anon and Developers.  Check out the attached anon cvs log.  You will 
> notice some differences in the comments.  Some extras, and some 
> missing.  In Anon, Doug Warren, Shash and M.Nash did most of the 
> commits.  In Developers, M. Nash, Shash, and I did the commits.  I don't 
> show in Anon, and Doug does not show in Developers.  This is very 
> scary.  Mike, you do have (or should have) login and access on 
> J2EEGuys.com, if you want to double check what is going on with Anon 
> downloads (make sure I am not crazy).  Let me know if you have any 
> issues getting in.

One thought before I even look: The repository root did change some time
ago (but I think *After* the logs you're talking about). I'm sure the
old one was removed, though, as I accidentally tried to use it from an
old workspace the other day and got spat out.

> QUESTION: Do we want to continue using the SF Anon servers for this, or 
> do we want to switch to crediantialed login.  I am getting good enough 
> at stuff like this that I can make the switch fairly quickly (as in pull 
> the sources down in my account, build, and then post to the Keel web 
> account w/o my credentials).
> Let me know.

I think the whole concept of what comprises a "nightly build" is going
to change pretty much right now, so maybe we want to take that jump:

With the Maven builds, each module generates a JAR file. For a nightly
build, this would be a so-called "SNAPSHOT" file, which has a date/time
stamp instead of a version number. Users can then choose to grab (on a
module-by-module basis) either the SNAPSHOT version (e.g. just give me
the latest), or a specific version (for stable deployments).

The specific version jars (of course) don't change all that often, but
the snapshots we should fire out (I suggest) once a day or so, for
modules under active development anyway.

The process of cranking out the jars can be entirely automated to the
point of a single command, which I'm experimenting with right now. When
a developer sets up his "write" access to a remote repository, he can
specify more than one - so far I've been using keelframework.org, but if
we can make a second one j2eeguys.com, that would be a good thing.

Now, all of this is talking about *binary* builds, as that's what Maven
deals with - there's no need for most people to have to get source code
for Keel itself at all any more (unless they're actually developing with
it, or just want it to look at). 

Maven also cranks out an incredibly detailed website, with reports and
Javadoc, for every project on demand. It takes a little setup, but I'd
like to start publishing those as well - this way, with the Javadoc,
doc, and reports right there, the need to create from source is even
less.

The reason I gabble on about this is that this new procedure would make
the CVS snapshot you're taking now unnecessary, IMO, replacing it
instead with a Maven repository. The only requirement is that the maven
repo be accessible via HTTP (e.g. a web server - doesn't matter which
one - needs to make it visible via a browser).

If you can drop me a mail directly about where this repo should live,
I'll give it a try today, then send out doc on how other developers can
set it up. We can control who has write permissions to the repository
seperately from write permissions to CVS, as necessary.

Mike

> 
> QUESTION: Should a support call be opened with SF by the Keel 
> Administrators regarding this?
> 
> QUESTION: How many other files are afflicted in the manner?
> 
> Regards,
> Steve
> 
> <===Begin Log from the
> Keel@tankjr:~/projects/Keel> cvs -z9 -q 
> -d:pserver:[email protected]:/cvsroot/keel log -S 
> keel-client/src/java/org/keel/clients/AbstractClientConnector.java
> 
> RCS file: 
> /cvsroot/keel/keel-client/src/java/org/keel/clients/AbstractClientConnector.java,v
> Working file: 
> keel-client/src/java/org/keel/clients/AbstractClientConnector.java
> head: 1.10
> branch:
> locks: strict
> access list:
> symbolic names:
>         magenta050111: 1.9
> keyword substitution: kv
> total revisions: 10;    selected revisions: 10
> description:
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.10
> date: 2005/02/15 19:01:36;  author: mprn;  state: Exp;  lines: +7 -13
> Remove jms dependency on distributed client
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.9
> date: 2005/01/05 16:55:44;  author: mprn;  state: Exp;  lines: +47 -29
> Remove logging jar depdency to resolve conflict
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.8
> date: 2004/11/11 15:33:09;  author: mprn;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
> Use direct client by default, not JMS
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.7
> date: 2004/06/29 14:47:40;  author: mprn;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -3
> Formatting only
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.6
> date: 2004/06/07 00:24:41;  author: chatterj;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -1
> Set the client's context from the client-connector context
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.5
> date: 2004/03/06 18:31:53;  author: dougwarren;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
> JavaDoc spelling correction ("transparent").
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.4
> date: 2004/03/06 16:48:53;  author: dougwarren;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
> JavaDoc spelling correction ("separate").
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.3
> date: 2004/03/06 16:42:29;  author: dougwarren;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
> JavaDoc spelling correction.
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.2
> date: 2004/03/06 16:26:22;  author: dougwarren;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -3
> JavaDoc spelling corrections ("management", "transparently").
> ----------------------------
> revision 1.1
> date: 2003/12/29 06:59:15;  author: chatterj;  state: Exp;
> Refactor to split out keel-common and keel-container
> =============================================================================
> Keel@tankjr:~/projects/Keel>
> 
> 
> Raoul Pierre wrote:
> 
> > Stephen Davidson a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> Would this just be a recent fix has not yet propogated to 
> >> http://j2eeguys.com/~Keel, or is there an actual error there?  The 
> >> deploy on j2eeguys.com is about 2 days behind CVS (Sourceforge 
> >> propogation, + scripts only update once a day).  So if this was only 
> >> fixed yesterday, than it would be a day or two before it made it out 
> >> to the nightly build.  If it was fixed longer ago than 2 days, then 
> >> there is some issue that I need to look at and address.  (Might need 
> >> to reinit the project or something).
> >>
> >> Let me know.
> >>
> >
> > In CVS, the last change of  AbstractWebappClientConnector.java is 
> > dated 2005/02/06 (rev.  1.11).
> >
> > Pierre
> 

http://keelframework.org/documentation.shtml
Keelgroup mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.keelframework.com/listinfo.cgi/keelgroup-keelframework.com