launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Maris Fogels <maris.fogels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/18/2010 01:12 PM, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2010-11-18 23:48, Jonathan Lange wrote:
>>
>>> Also note that there's a 'make compile' step which builds practically
>>> everything you need for most tests, and does *not* build wadl.
>>
>> That does sound like it justifies what you said earlier.  Developers
>> shouldn't have to predict such subtleties.  Is the WADL secretly a test
>> resource that we set up too aggressively?
>>
> 
> To my mind, yes. However I believe it is also something that needs to
> be present on a deployed production system.
> 
> I don't see how having a clear step "make deploy" that depends on
> "make build" would invite hiccoughs in production.
> 
> jml
> 

Jono, I think having a "make deploy" target is a great idea, and would help make
the root Makefile more readable.

Different Makefile targets are owned by different groups, and right now there is
no easy way to edit any target without risking a break in the deployment
scripts.  "make deploy" is a good first step towards fixing that.

As to the operations impact, I think you will have to ask Gary and the LOSAs
(I've sent this conversation to Gary to get his input).  We had a "build
once/run everywhere" deployment system that I know little about, but Gary does,
and he may be able to help us untangle which Makefile targets belong to whom.

I also like the idea of setting up the WADL as an on-demand test resource
(either in the layer setup or as a fixture).  self.useFixture(Webservice()).
You may have to solve the "make deploy" problem first though.

-- 
Māris Fogels -- https://launchpad.net/~mars
Launchpad.net -- cross-project collaboration and hosting

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature