[JBEAP-10083][MODULES-282] blocking EAP migration testing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[JBEAP-10083][MODULES-282] blocking EAP migration testing

Richard Opalka
Hi David & Peter,


    MODULES-241 fix appeared in EAP these days

and it introduced new regression - see [JBEAP-10083] comments.

    We have three possibilities at the moment:

  * Option 1) Revert [MODULES-241] commit completely

  * Option 2) Partially revert [MODULES-241] and bring in the hacky
solution I proposed some time ago

    (see proposal branch:
https://github.com/ropalka/jboss-modules/commits/MODULES-282)

  * Option 3) Provide a proper fix (we don't have it ATM)


I would guess Peter was working on the solution to solve some customer
problem, right?

If we don't come with Option 3) solution on tomorrow then

I'd propose to go with Option 2) for now (I just verified locally it
solves the migration problem

identified by QA and it fixes - although in an ugly way - the original
issue).

Let me know what do you think?



Richard

PS: I'm going to reason about Option 3) now ...


_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [JBEAP-10083][MODULES-282] blocking EAP migration testing

Richard Opalka
Ooops, I forgot to delete wildfly-dev mailing list - sorry for the spam
everybody.

Rio


On 04/05/2017 10:52 PM, Richard Opalka wrote:

> Hi David & Peter,
>
>
>    MODULES-241 fix appeared in EAP these days
>
> and it introduced new regression - see [JBEAP-10083] comments.
>
>    We have three possibilities at the moment:
>
>  * Option 1) Revert [MODULES-241] commit completely
>
>  * Option 2) Partially revert [MODULES-241] and bring in the hacky
> solution I proposed some time ago
>
>    (see proposal branch:
> https://github.com/ropalka/jboss-modules/commits/MODULES-282)
>
>  * Option 3) Provide a proper fix (we don't have it ATM)
>
>
> I would guess Peter was working on the solution to solve some customer
> problem, right?
>
> If we don't come with Option 3) solution on tomorrow then
>
> I'd propose to go with Option 2) for now (I just verified locally it
> solves the migration problem
>
> identified by QA and it fixes - although in an ugly way - the original
> issue).
>
> Let me know what do you think?
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> PS: I'm going to reason about Option 3) now ...
>
>

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev