New repos are up: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?s=couchdb
I'm gonna go through and initialize them with history from master or one of the bigcouch and rcouch branches as appropriate. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > Infrastructure ticket opened: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7203 > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 20:42 , Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It doesn't appear that this is objectionable to anyone. Does anyone >>> have an objection to us having infra/me create these repos to use for >>> the bigcouch/rcouch merge work? This won't affect master or releases >>> until those merges finish. >> >> no objections. >> >> Jan >> -- >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Paul J Davis >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:37 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Paul Davis >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I've recently been having discussions about how to handle the >>>>>> repository configuration for various bits of CouchDB post-merge. The >>>>>> work that Benoit has been doing on the rcouch merge branch have also >>>>>> touched on this topic as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> The background for those unfamiliar is that the standard operating >>>>>> procedure for Erlang is to have a single Erlang application per >>>>>> repository and then rely on rebar to fetch each dependency. >>>>>> Traditionally in CouchDB land we've always just included the source to >>>>>> all applications in a single monolithic repository and periodically >>>>>> reimport changes from upstream dependencies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Recently rcouch changed from the monolithic repository to use external >>>>>> repositories for some dependencies. Originally the BigCouch used an >>>>>> even more federated scheme that had each Erlang application in an >>>>>> external repository (and the core couch Erlang application was in the >>>>>> root repository). When Bob Newson and I did the initial hacking on the >>>>>> BigCouch merge we pulled those external dependencies into the root >>>>>> repository reverting back to the large monolithic approach. >>>>>> >>>>>> After trying to deal with the merge and contemplating how various >>>>>> Erlang release things might work it's become fairly apparent that the >>>>>> monolithic approach is a bit constrictive. For instance, part of >>>>>> rebar's versioning abilities lets you tag repositories to generate >>>>>> versions rather than manually updating versions in source files. >>>>>> Another thing I've found on other projects is that having each >>>>>> application in a separate repository requires developers to think a >>>>>> bit more detailed about the public internal interfaces used through >>>>>> out the system. We've done some work to this extent already with >>>>>> separating source directories but forcing commits to multiple >>>>>> repositories shoots up a big red flag that maybe there's a high level >>>>>> of coupling between two bits of code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other benefits of having the multiple repository setup is that its >>>>>> possible that this lends itself to being integrated with the proposed >>>>>> plugin system. It'd be fairly trivial to have a script that went and >>>>>> fetched plugins that aren't developed at Apache (as a ./configure time >>>>>> switch type of thing). Having a system like this would also allow us >>>>>> to have groups focused on particular bits of development not have to >>>>>> concern themselves with the unrelated parts of the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given all that, I'd like to propose that we move to having a >>>>>> repository for each application/dependency that we use to build >>>>>> CouchDB. Each repository would be hosted on ASF infra and mirrored to >>>>>> GitHub as expected. This means that we could have the root repository >>>>>> be a simple repo that contains packaging/release/build stuff that >>>>>> would enable lots of the ideas offered on configurable types of >>>>>> release generation. I've included an initial list of repositories at >>>>>> the end of this email. Its basically just the apps that have been >>>>>> split out in either rcouch or bigcouch plus a few other bits from >>>>>> CouchDB master. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would also point out that even though our main repo would need to >>>>>> fetch other dependencies from the internet to build the final output, >>>>>> we fully intend that our release tarballs would *not* have this >>>>>> requirement. Ie, when we go to cut a release part of the process the >>>>>> RM would run would be to pull all of those dependencies before >>>>>> creating a tarball that would be wholly self contained. Given an >>>>>> apache-couchdb-x.y.z.tar.gz release file, there won't be a requirement >>>>>> to have access to the ASF git repos. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not entirely sure how controversial this is for anyone. For the >>>>>> most part the reactions I remember hearing were more concerned on >>>>>> whether the infrastructure team would allow us to use this sort of >>>>>> configuration. I looked yesterday and asked and apparently its >>>>>> something we can request but as always we'll want to verify again if >>>>>> we have consensus to move in this direction. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone have comments or flames? Right now I'm just interested in >>>>>> feeling out what sort of (lack of?) consensus there is on such a >>>>>> change. If there's general consensus I'd think we'd do a vote in a >>>>>> couple weeks and if that passes then start on down this road for the >>>>>> two merge projects and then it would become part of master once those >>>>>> land (as opposed to doing this to master and then attempting to merge >>>>>> rcouch/bigcouch onto that somehow). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a quick pass at listing what extra repositories I'd have >>>>>> created. Some of these applications only exist in the bigcouch and/or >>>>>> rcouch branches so that's where the unfamiliar application names are >>>>>> from. I'd also point out that the documentation and fauxton things are >>>>>> just on a whim in that we could decouple that development from the >>>>>> erlang development. I can see arguments for an against those. I'm much >>>>>> less concerned on that aspect than the Erlang parts that are directly >>>>>> affected by rebar/Erlang conventions. >>>>>> >>>>>> chttpd >>>>>> config >>>>>> couch >>>>>> couch_collate >>>>>> couch_dbupdates >>>>>> couch_httpd >>>>>> couch_index >>>>>> couch_mrview >>>>>> couch_plugins >>>>>> couch_replicator >>>>>> documentation >>>>>> ddoc_cache >>>>>> ets_lru >>>>>> fabric >>>>>> fauxton >>>>>> ibrowse >>>>>> jiffy >>>>>> mem3 >>>>>> mochiweb >>>>>> oauth >>>>>> rebar >>>>>> rexi >>>>>> snappy >>>>>> twig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also contemplated this and and I am generally +1 on this. And definitely >>>>> +1 to mirror them on the apache git if possible. I have a couple of >>>>> comments though. >>>>> >>>>> Initially I also had everything separated in its own source repository. 1 >>>>> year ago I merged back as one core repo the couchdb erlang applications >>>>> and >>>>> put all the dependencies in the refuge repository or in the refuge CDN for >>>>> the spidermonkey and ICU sources. >>>>> >>>>> I merged back as one core repo the couchdb erlang applications because >>>>> they >>>>> were a little too much dependant. Especially couch_httpd, couch_index and >>>>> couch_mrview. These applications are not yet enough by themselves. >>>>> >>>>> Imo if we split everything in their own apps, then we should make sure >>>>> that couch_httpd can be used without couch_index and couch_mrview (which >>>>> means that "all_docs" is available in couch_httpd). Also we should be able >>>>> to just launch couch without any of the above. And probably without the >>>>> need of an ini. The couch_query_server module thing is an interesting >>>>> case. >>>>> bigcouch is also introducing `ddoc_cache` which I am not sure why it is >>>>> provided as a standalone app. Does it means it can be replaced by another >>>>> application eventually? Why not having it simply in the couch >>>>> application? >>>>> Does it needs to be updated separately? >>>>> >>>>> Also all our base applications should also be named spaced correctly so >>>>> they will be strictly identified as erlang modules: "config" is too >>>>> generic, "ddoc_cache" too. Others are probably OK. >>>>> >>>>> There are probably other things that we could provide as apps: >>>>> >>>>> - couch_daemon, >>>>> - couch_js >>>>> - couch_external >>>>> - couch_stats >>>>> - couch_compaction_daemon >>>>> - couch_httpd_proxy >>>>> >>>>> Anyway again i'm +1 for this move, I really think it's a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> - benoit >>>> >>>> I agree on most of this. Roughly I see three general points. >>>> >>>> First, deciding on whether some things are external deps is definitely up >>>> for discussion. Whether couch_mrview is a different app/repo is not >>>> necessarily clear cut. Personally I think I over engineered couch_index >>>> which blurs the lines a bit. If I could wave a wand I'd have just >>>> couch_mrview and it'd be separate. More importantly I think the separate >>>> repos makes these things more apparent. The fact were discussing this sort >>>> of architecture thing is suggestive that it's forcing us to think a bit >>>> harder. >>>> >>>> Second is the aspect of composability. For instance the mrview thing to me >>>> is obviously a different repo precisely so a user could import couch >>>> (_core?) directly without requiring the spider monkey dependency. The >>>> monolithic repo doesn't allow this without some very non-standard tooling. >>>> >>>> Thirdly, app naming is always a contention. The config name was actually a >>>> hot code upgrade concern. We couldn't reuse couch_config directly at the >>>> time. And Adam was also hopeful we could the it into a useful non-specific >>>> config app. >>>> >>>> Fourthly, and related to secondly, we'll also want to look at splitting >>>> other apps out as necessary. The ones you listed I think aren't >>>> controversial it's just that no one has done it yet. My list was purely >>>> what existed so far without attempting to carve things up more. I >>>> definitely agree we should carve more in just wanted to cover consensus >>>> that carving is the right direction. >>>> >>>> Fifthly, I'm done typing on my phone. I'll fill in more thoughts tomorrow. >>>> >>
