Infusion Builder and bug parade

Colin Clark colinbdclark at
Tue Sep 29 22:39:48 UTC 2009

Hey everyone,

There were some questions today in the channel about outstanding  
issues for the Infusion Builder and where they fit into the bug  
parade. After catching up on the channel logs, here are my thoughts:

First, there was the question of whether the Builder needs to be  
subject to all the same bug parade/release rules as the rest of  
Infusion, since since it doesn't actually ship inside Infusion. While  
it currently lives in our incubator SVN space, it will get promoted to  
a fully supported product for the Infusion 1.1.2. Given how important  
it is to Infusion, it should continue to be subject to all the usual  
bug parade and QA procedures.
The issue of error handling logic within the Builder's server-side PHP  
code. Jacob's code review rightly points out that we're making some  
assumptions with regular expressions used to find properties within  
the Ant build script's file. These absolutely should  
be fixed, but I think we can get away with leaving it off bug parade  
for Infusion 1.1.2. Indeed, after this release we may want to visit  
our strategy for reading and perhaps parse it instead  
of running potentially fragile regexps on the file's raw contents.
So FLUID-3191 is just the addition of some extra comments? As I  
understand it, this code is hard-baked to a particular Infusion  
version number. I'm assuming that this is temporary, and that  
eventually we'll pull the version number out of the build script's file? Is there a JIRA for this issue?

I'm assuming we'll have some documentation about anything that is  
required to do for the builder when upgrading it or to a new version  
of Infusion.

To summarize:

1. Infusion Builder will remain synced to the release cycle of  
Infusion, and will undergo bug parade, code freeze, and QA alongside  

2. Let's not include FLUID-3213 for the Infusion 1.1.2 bug parade.  
It's a major issue that we can fix after this release is out the door.

3. FLUID-3191 seems strange to me.

4. I agree with Jacob's code review assessment for FLUID-3149, 3190,  
3191, 3199, and 3200. We're cool here, and these can get checked off  
the "Needs Review" list of the bug parade.

I hope this helps,


Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project

More information about the fluid-work mailing list