[sakai2-tcc] LTI Release Consulting

[Aaron Zeckoski]

Just a brief comment but I would generally expect the release which
works with 2.9.0, 2.9.1, and 2.9.x to pretty much be the same one
(probably referencing the 2.9.0 or 2.9.1 artifacts but not actually
including any in the build). Are you really relying on things that are
different in those versions or is there some other reason I am missing
for splitting things up like that?

-AZ


On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Charles Severance <csev at umich.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I need a indie release consultant for LTI.   I want to come up with a really
> nice LTI 2.1 release - release notes, etc.
>
> I love Indie releases because we can do them off-cycle but really, I want to
> release a tag for LTI  2.1 for Sakai 2.8.3, 2.9.0, 2.9.1, and 2.9.x (to
> become 2.9.2) where *I* test the tags / artifacts for each of those Sakai
> tags rather than just telling folks to edit the pom.xml and fix little
> weirdnesses that comes up.
>
> I looked at the branch/tag/artifact naming pattern for two of our leading
> lights in the Sakai indie world (Profile2 and LessonBuilder).  Profile goes
> pure-indie with its own versions and a compatibility map and other wonderful
> stuff here:
>
> https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/PROFILE/Profile2
>
> Does this mean that the binary artifacts work without change the the
> "compatible Sakai versions" in the table?   For source, do they need pom.xml
> tweaks and how does Steve communicate any necessary pom.xml tweaks for
> source folks.
>
>  LessonBuilder kind of goes back and forth in branch and tag naming between
> things that mention the LB version and the Sakai versions in the tag folder:
>
> https://source.sakaiproject.org/svn/lessonbuilder/tags/
>
> I wonder if this means tags like "recommended for 2.9.0" change over time?
>
> I would like something that worked nicely with both source and binary
> adopters and to be explicit in connecting Sakai versions and BLTI versions
> in something other than release notes.  I of course am one of the *least
> skilled* amongst this group as an actual deployer of Sakai in production -
> so if you tell me that my ideas below are crazy and too over thought - that
> is OK.  Simpler is better - but I crave explicitness.
>
> I am thinking something like this:
>
> /branches/basiclti-2.1-x
>
> /tags/basiclti-2.1.0-sakai-2.8.3
>
> /tags/basiclti-2.1.0-sakai-2.9.0
>
> /tags/basiclti-2.1.0-sakai-2.9.1
>
> I would also name the binary artifacts version in the poms in each of the
> tags something like "basiclti-2.1.0-sakai-2.9.1" - if the
>
> I would make the tags from the branch, and immediately tweak only the
> pom.xml and any tweaks necessary to work with 2.8.3 (or whatever).  Then the
> moment I like the tag, I freeze the tag forever and once I announce it I
> never change it.  If something was wrong with that tag, I would make a new
> one with a name like:
>
> blti-2.1.0-sakai-2.8.3-01
>
> I know it is kind of long and verbose - but I want something that works with
> the externals of all the various versions that we support and I think that
> we indie builders have the responsibility of supporting and testing known
> and precise tags of our indie releases with the currently supported Sakai
> releases.  It is like encoding Steve's table in tag form, taking Chuck H's
> approach and formalizing it a bit.   For example if you look here:
>
> https://source.sakaiproject.org/svn/lessonbuilder/tags/sakai-lessonbuildertool-2.9.0-recommended/
>
> There is also a file named "pom.xml.281" which I assume is the pom tested
> with 2.8.1
>
> I would rather just make more tags and give people a precise artifact that
> is exactly suitable for purpose and named in a way to make things *really
> clear".
>
> I think that over the next few years, the pace of Sakai 2.x releases may
> slow and it may be more important to evolve indies faster than the core
> Sakai release.  I am not sure this will happen, but I would like to be
> prepared for it.  In particular, LTI will evolve a good bit over the next 18
> months - what we have now is LTI 1.1.  There is LTI 1.2, 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1
> in the pipeline already - so I could have easily 2-3 major functionality
> releases of LTI over the next 12 months so I want to come up with a way to
> reduce the loose linkage.
>
> Part of my crazy effort on LTI the past few weeks is to get it all nice and
> clean so I can start working on LTI 2.0 in the May/June timeframe.
>
> Thoughts / comments welcome..
>
> /Chuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
>



-- 
Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile