Github user MJJoyce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/climate/pull/154#issuecomment-78374367
@kwhitehall with regards to your last sentence. I think the biggest
difference is that the ocw-cli is functionality built on top of the OCW library
that the project supports and actively promotes. This is similar to the ocw-vm
and ui. It's tools for exploiting the library in ways that some users might
find useful. Those make sense to be top level folders in my opinion although
others may disagree. However, if this was committed as the rcmes-cli then it's
simply being added as an example of how someone used OCW. It's functionality
that is built on top of the project but in no way is it supported or endorsed
by the project. I think a very obvious separation is important because of that.
Truthfully, I'm not even a fan of having something like that in the code
base but I realize that differs from the opinions of many on the project. It
seems to me that if there's not going to be support for (and active development
on) the tool from the project then it has no place in the project's repo. It
just opens the door for confusion. For instance, we shouldn't be opening
tickets for issues on this code. Active development shouldn't be going through
the ASF repo for some external companies example code right? Any user questions
should be directed to the company that actually supports the code not us.
When/how will the code be updated when future API changes inevitably break
functionality? I would say that linking to official release from an external
company that wants to provide an example of functionality would be ideal.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
