Uhm, that's a tricky one. I'll have to follow up on this. My guts
feeling says that altering history is not something that we want to do,
but I understand the rationale.
We could abandon the repo (leave it as incubator-brookly, not mirrored
at GH), I guess, and only copy the stuff we want (with history).
Hadrian
On 11/18/2015 03:22 PM, Richard Downer wrote:
+1 - that sounds like a good idea. I'd suggest that - at least
initially - the docs go into this repository.
I'm still not convinced about the versioning - BUT that is a separate
issue and won't block consensus for splitting the repositories.
Hadrian, any thoughts on the feasibility of editing the history to
remove the large binary objects? That seems to have to got lost in
this thread.
Richard.
On 18 November 2015 at 19:02, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you see apache/brooklyn as being the distro project? If that's the case
+1 from me.
Hadrian
On 11/18/2015 01:59 PM, Alex Heneveld wrote:
For external relations purposes and as an umbrella should we also have
apache/brooklyn ?
I tend to think yes.
Best
Alex
On 18 Nov 2015 17:55, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <[email protected]> wrote:
So I see a lot of consensus on Alex's proposal with the following
amendment (s/brooklyn/brooklyn-core/):
* apache/brooklyn-core
* apache/brooklyn-ui
* apache/brooklyn-library
If we can get a consensus on this I don't think we need to go to a vote.
I
will address the other comments as direct replies, because I don't see
them
as contradictory to this proposal.
WDYT?
Hadrian
On 11/17/2015 12:44 PM, Alex Heneveld wrote:
+1 to removing the large artifacts; it's just stupid having them there.
Personally I would like to see the apache/incubator-brooklyn carved up
as follows:
* apache/brooklyn
* apache/brooklyn-ui
* apache/brooklyn-library
The third one contains all the concrete items, like jboss and tomcat and
cassandra etc. The UI is the jsgui.
The first one is the main one, with everything else, including CLI and
REST API, vanilla software process, and jclouds locations and osgi.
The only other thing I'm wondering is whether brooklyn-api should be
separate, and very rarely changing. This would allow us potentially to
run different versions of brooklyn-* in the same system, using the magic
of OSGi.
WDYT?
Best
Alex
On 17/11/2015 17:03, Richard Downer wrote:
Hi Hadrian,
I don't think there's any need to split the repository (although I've
no strong opinions on this, if someone else has an idea).
However there has been a long-standing issue with our repository's
history - in the dim and distant past, binary artifacts of Tomcat etc.
used for testing were committed to the repository. These are long
gone, but they still exist in the git history, and everybody is forced
to clone these large artifacts.
Could we use the graduation migration as an opportunity to rewrite the
git history to permanently remove these large artifacts? It'd result
in a much quicker clone of the repo for new contributors to Brooklyn.
Richard.
On 17 November 2015 at 00:58, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello Brooklyners,
The Brooklyn graduation resolution is again on the board agenda. This
time I
paid paranoid attention to details and I hope the stars to be better
aligned.
Assuming all goes well, there will be a few tasks to take care post
graduation, mostly related to dropping the "incubating" suffix. Part
of that
process it is possible to split the git repository into multiple
smaller
ones. It is possible to do it later, but doing it now would be easier
and
more natural, I think.
Therefore, if anybody has any idea or proposal related to that, speak
up
now. In the absence of consensus the status quo will be maintained. I
will
work with infra and try to make the process as smooth as possible for
the
community regardless of which way we decide to go.
Cheers,
Hadrian
