search

playframework / play-meta

Team management & cross-repository effort tracking
Apache License 2.0
8 stars 8 forks source link

Play Sprint Plan 2019-03-25 #56

Closed marcospereira closed 5 years ago

marcospereira commented 5 years ago

Previous sprint plans

Dates

Absences

Objectives

Cleanups

Iceland

SethTisue commented 5 years ago

\<tiny voice> would https://github.com/lightbend/ssl-config/issues/142 fit?

TimMoore commented 5 years ago

The changes around the Lagom example applications seem worth discussing more widely, both within Lightbend and in the community.

dwijnand commented 5 years ago

The changes around the Lagom example applications seem worth discussing more widely, both within Lightbend and in the community.

@TimMoore let's discuss that in https://github.com/playframework/play-meta/issues/33. Both Ignasi and Renato hold some different opinions so let's agree on a plan there first. Renato has agreed to lay out his ideas there so Ignasi and others can discuss off of those.

dwijnand commented 5 years ago
would [lightbend/ssl-config#142](https://github.com/lightbend/ssl-config/issues/142) fit?

@SethTisue I don't have the background knowledge in ssl-config and play to efficiently push forward on that change. Last time I spoke about it with @marcospereira he said he'd try and review Will's various PRs. The best I can do is restore ssl-config's master so it builds with play master, but that would mean it wouldn't pass on Java 11 anymore, meaning the community build would need to re-fork (or add the change its existing fork, if present). Is that result a net-win for you or neutral/worst?

SethTisue commented 5 years ago

My own main concern is that we not let Lightbend stuff lag too far behind in the JDK 8 community build. I'm not super concerned about building on JDK 11, it's only a nice-to-have.

I can't recall if there is anything here that affects running published artifacts on JDK 11. If so, that's a potential issue for users and customers and probably means it should be a priority after all (not urgently, but not many months of back-burnering, either?).

dwijnand commented 5 years ago

I agree with the priority of not letting ssl-config -> play -> lagom lag, due to being forked in the community build. So I'll unbreak the situation by reverting the initial change.

I also agree with the less-important-but-still-important goal of getting it working on Java 11 (it's one of the current priorities: "Drop allow_failures for AdoptOpenJDK 11" above).

TimMoore commented 5 years ago

@TimMoore let's discuss that in #33.

Sounds good, but I still suggest making this issue/discussion more visible. I don't think all interested parties will necessarily be watching this repo.