Re: [che-dev] Adding Arquillian Smart Testing to Che base distribution?

[Gennady Azarenkov <gazarenk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.ercan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11 Dec 2017, at 5:46, Gennady Azarenkov wrote:

My (raw) proposal is to have well visible but other place to let community
contribute with minimum impact on maintaining the project,
some sort of "incubator", as well as a procedure to pick the plugin from
and (if needed) push the plugin back from/to incubation.
Something like che-incubator GH org (or sub-org) would work.

The root issue is plugins are required to be built into assemblies, that needs to change.

Until  that happens I recommend we ask plugin developer to publish their component to maven central
and create a PR for including the plugin as a maven dependency into the assembly. Every time we
receive such a request or an update to existing one we will have to do a CQ but perhaps this forces
us to act quickly about extensions :)

Independently on how good extension framework is we have the question: 
What we include in Che release by default?

Another question to answer it:

What we recommend to community in order to test and let other to test theirs Che things?

I tried to address these questions. 

Actually, if maintainers are comfortable to include everything proposed as a PR into Che default assembly - it answers both.

But, according to Sergii's message, it is not the case.

 

So contributor will ba able to request for repository inside, create and
own the code, keep updated (so it can be built and tested) assembly with
the plugin,
take care of documentation about its configuration etc and e2e/integration
tests.
And some moment offer it to the che...

Thanks,
Gennady


On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Sergii Kabashniuk <skabashn@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

For me, one of the critical question with this topic is a support of code.
Who will support it, how? What if maintainer becomes unavailable for a
long period?
What are the criteria for removing the code from the repository, for the
case if the community (maintainer) lost them interest?

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Brad Micklea <bmicklea@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for the explanation. That doesn't sound too painful considering
where we are now. I'll +1 the addition because I think there's real
developer value here. What do others think?

_______________________________________________
che-dev mailing list
che-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/che-dev

_______________________________________________
che-dev mailing list
che-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/che-dev

_______________________________________________
che-dev mailing list
che-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/che-dev

_______________________________________________
che-dev mailing list
che-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/che-dev