Louis, Thank you for offering your feedback. My understanding so far was that we were talking about the relevance and logistics of the different ideas. It did not make sense to talk about schedule quite yet because it wasn't clear we would want to do it. Also, I didn't think we were talking about making major changes to the implementations necessarily.
The git migration is a source control-only change, it does not include changing continuum's support for git. The talk about svnpubsub, the parent pom and Apache CMS was in response to my query about what effects migrating to read/write git would have on how we manage the rest of the project. It should not affect functionality. The source code reorganization would be about moving the code around to redraw the module boundaries. While there might be functionality impacts due to the scope of what would be changing, it would mostly be moving code and not rewriting it (for now). I think it makes sense to talk about release timing, but it probably makes sense as a separate thread still. Brent On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Louis Smith <dr.louis.sm...@gmail.com>wrote: > Should all the initiatives under discussion be combined into a major > project? Make this Continuum 3.0? Include full GIT support, move to GIT, > re-factor (per the other thread), move reports to Apache CMS... Seems like > a HUGE amount of work has been discussed when you collapse the various > threads here. > > How large is the Continuum user base at this point? How would this impact > them? What would the upgrade path be? > > From my point of view, I have nearly 300 projects (200 or so "active) in > one of my clients SDI. With nearly 2 dozen support libraries, 10 > multi-module, 80 "under development" up to the 64 in production. Releases > are done almost daily. > > A major "upgrade" impact would be something we would have to carefully > schedule - but it would actually be easier than 4 or 5 smaller ones. > > Just random thoughts from the old man who hasn't had enough coffee yet... > > Louis > > Dr. Louis Smith, ThD > Chief Technology Officer, Kyra InfoTech > Museum Director, Veterans Memorial Railroad > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On 20 May 2014, at 1:17 am, Brent Atkinson <brent.atkin...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > That is encouraging. I am happy to do this myself if people find it > > > valuable. The project is already converted to git as you said. However, > > how > > > site publishing and the parent pom fit into this is not clear to me. > Not > > > knowing the ins and outs of the Apache-specific processes like svn > pubsub > > > and how and when parent poms are staged (just for example), it is not > > clear > > > what effect if any moving to git would have. > > > > Really no effect there - svnpubsub is still used for the site publish, > but > > it's a checkout from a separate SVN repo. Likewise, the parent POM is > > published to an artifact repository, so that's the same. > > > > Whether the site & parent POM get moved to Git or left in SVN is > something > > to decide. I'd suggest just starting with the main trunk and approach the > > others later if needed. For example, we might later decide to use the > > Apache CMS for the site instead of a Maven project, and in that case the > > parent POM probably isn't needed. > > > > > I am more than happy to figure > > > it out, though I may need help identifying the most relevant channels > to > > do > > > it. > > > > I think the steps are: > > - hold a vote here > > - if passed, ask infra to convert the repository and coordinate with the > > list > > - once done, go through the POMs, developer and contributor documentation > > and make sure repository references point to the new location > > > > As always, I'm happy to help - I just don't have cycles to drive that at > > the moment. > > > > Cheers, > > Brett > > > > >
