Hi all, Improving our authentication is a good feature to have, but I don't think it's a blocker to a 1.0 release. I'd love to see this feature, but I don't think we need to hold back 1.0 for it (better to think such a feature through properly than to try and rush it into the next release.)
Andrea, I've looked at readthedocs myself - I love the idea of making the drudgery of doc generation tooling Somebody Else's Problem, but when I last looked, it wasn't suited to the way our user guide was written. It would have needed quite a lot of manual effort to migrate from our home-grown tooling into the way that readthedocs wants things to be written. See my response[1] to Thomas' thread for a bit more. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/15b819cdecdcb717aa45e2efc7e4e5d3f1fcd491d1255a8aa72cd1c7@%3Cdev.brooklyn.apache.org%3E On 5 October 2017 at 11:22, Andrea Turli <and...@cloudsoft.io> wrote: > +1 to stronger authN > > FYI I've quickly tried readthedocs -- see > https://readthedocs.org/projects/brooklyn-docs/ and it is nice and free, > maybe we should consider it for the website. It is an hosted service well > integrated with github which offers full text seatrch out of the box. > Many others ASF projects already use them, it's maybe worth a try. > > My two cents, > Andrea > > > > On 5 October 2017 at 12:07, Thomas Bouron <thomas.bou...@cloudsoftcorp.com > > > wrote: > > > I would agree with Geoff on the auth. I think it would be nice to move to > > JWT for 1.0. > > > > I would also point out the Brooklyn website. I'm the one to blame on > this, > > I redesigned the home page but not the rest (mostly due to the currently > > complexity of it) > > I'll send a proposal on this today. > > > > Best. > > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 17:57 Geoff Macartney < > geoff.macart...@cloudsoft.io> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 with observation that there are still some things we might want to > do > > > before making that 1.0 release. (In re. Richard's comment about "Are we > > > feature complete", you may think we are not.) > > > > > > For example something I think it would be good to do before announcing > a > > > 1.0 is to get away from basic auth on the UI and REST API and having a > > > session token based approach, perhaps based on JWT tokens. (Don't like > > > storing the auth credentials for the CLI) > > > > > > That's one example but you may have your own suggestions - shout out! > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:41 Richard Downer <rich...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 with conditions :-) > > > > > > > > Yes, I'd like to see Apache Brooklyn 1.0 released. I'd suggest that > we > > > > would get ASF PR involved to generate a bit of buzz around this, and > > > > possibly approach some of our commercial users and friends to chip in > > > with > > > > some PR too. > > > > > > > > But going to 1.0 (and generating some media buzz around it) brings > > > > responsibilities. If the media buzz brings in new users, we want to > > make > > > > sure our usability is as high as possible - this covers the app > itself, > > > as > > > > well as the website and the documentation. > > > > > > > > So to answer your question with some more questions... > > > > > > > > Are we feature-complete? > > > > > > > > Do we have great usability? Good user stories for all our types of > > users? > > > > > > > > Are we happy to freeze our API in its current state? > > > > > > > > Are we happy to accept a stricter deprecation policy going forward? > > > > > > > > Is there nothing that we want to deprecate before 1.0? (That would > > imply > > > > another 0.x release cycle) > > > > > > > > Have we removed every deprecated thing that we can? (If something is > > > > deprecated but cannot be removed, why?) > > > > > > > > Do we have great documentation? > > > > > > > > Do we have a great website? > > > > > > > > Does our documentation and examples reflect the "best" (not > deprecated, > > > > outdated or suboptimal) way of doing things? > > > > > > > > Will the blueprints in the wider community be compatible with the > > > proposed > > > > 1.0 release or do they need updating? (We will need to work with > those > > > > blueprint owners to get the blueprints updated.) > > > > > > > > Are we prepared to personally get involved in a media and visibility > > > push? > > > > (e.g. using our own Twitter, networks, getting more people involved > in > > > > managing the official Apache Brooklyn social media channels, etc.) > > > > > > > > Are we prepared - in the event of a successful media blitz - to > handle > > > more > > > > users coming to this list, IRC, Twitter etc. looking for help? > > > > > > > > > > > > If we can answer "yes" to all of these questions, then we are ready > to > > > > release 1.0. If any of these questions is answered "no" or "maybe" > then > > > we > > > > should wait, or consider making a 0.13.0 release first. > > > > > > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 October 2017 at 16:33, Duncan Godwin <drigod...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > Following the release last week of Apache Brooklyn 0.12.0 I propose > > > that > > > > we > > > > > make the next version of Apache Brooklyn 1.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > Apache Brooklyn is robust, stable, feature rich and being used in > > > > > production by multiple enterprises. Our deprecation policy means we > > > > haven't > > > > > treated it like a 0.x release in a very long time. > > > > > > > > > > With 0.12.0, we did the last major thing needed before a 1.0 > release: > > > we > > > > > switched to Karaf as the primary distribution and we deprecated the > > > > > "classic mode". What does everyone think? > > > > > > > > > > Many thanks > > > > > > > > > > Duncan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thomas Bouron • Senior Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation • > > https://cloudsoft.io/ > > Github: https://github.com/tbouron > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron > > >
