I would expect anyone working on one of these services to have rights to the other services too, and to participate in conversations about the others. I wouldn't want to segment the community. Just the code. I like being able to download artifacts instead of code to speed up a build. I like having just the code I am working on open. I appreciate the discipline having physically separate code bases adds to my own thought processes. I also would prefer to be able to upgrade each of the microservices independently of the others in a deployment (within reasonable limits) and be able to correspond one branch in one repository to one microservice release.
I doubt the incubator community would want to review up to 10 releases for one community, so I don't think a 1 TLP :: 1 microservice approach would be accepted by Apache. Greets, Myrle *Myrle Krantz* Solutions Architect RɅĐɅЯ, The Mifos Initiative mkra...@mifos.org | Skype: mkrantz.mifos.org | http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Keith Woodlock <keithwoodl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Myrle, Markus, > > For lots of reasons it would make sense for the Fineract Platform to be one > project (on apache and github). > > If the main driver for saying service-per-repository is about putting in a > physical barrier to stop developers leaking code or abstractions into one > another then I think having just one code repository / project is fine and > you need to split the 'Fineract Platform' into a number of sub-projects > (folders) for each service. > > A quick example of that type of setup would be: > https://github.com/ewolff/microservice, the microservice-demo folder is > split into the various services that compose it etc > > regards, > Keith. > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > At Apache we don't like umbrella projects - that is projects that can > > stand on their own as separate projects being gathered together under > > one-uber project. This tends to be damaging for community development. > > However, there is nothing wrong with one project having multiple > "services" > > each represented as a separate project within a parent PMC when those > > services are not useful projects outside of Fineract itself. > > > > Another warning sign is if the services start to build their own > > governance structure within the parent project. Merit earned on one part > of > > a Top Level Project gives equal authority over all other parts. Now you > may > > have social policies that say "don't touch code you don't understand" but > > you can't have byelaws that prevent it. If it is necessary to separate > your > > community in this way then you probably need to have multiple TLPs. > > > > So the answer is "it depends ;-) > > > > Ross > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Markus Geiß [mailto:markus.ge...@live.de] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 12:29 AM > > > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: [MENTORS] multiple repos for one Apache Product? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:33:06 -0700 > > > > Subject: Re: [MENTORS] multiple repos for one Apache Product? > > > > From: ro...@shaposhnik.org > > > > To: dev@fineract.incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Myrle Krantz <mkra...@mifos.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Mentors, > > > >> > > > >> I asked this question in the thread on microservices, but the e-mail > > > >> was long and most of the content was not relevant for you guys so > you > > > >> may have missed it: > > > >> > > > >> As far as I can tell the current mode of operation at Apache is one > > > >> repository to one product. I would prefer to work with one > repository > > > >> per service. I believe that would help programmers remain strict > > > >> about division of labor between the services, and think more > > > >> carefully about interface breaking changes. Is there any reason a > > > >> product can't have multiple repositories? > > > > > > > > Multiple repos are, of course, permissible. However, the question you > > > > should be asking your self are more along the lines of how much of a > > > > de-couple release policy AND community participation do you want to > > > > have between these projects. Because the thing is, if your repos are > > > > independent enough wrt. release schedules AND independent enough > > > > regarding who commits to them ASF will be asking a question of > breaking > > > you into a set of projects. > > > > > > > > Does this answer you question? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Roman. > > > > > > Hey Roman, > > > > > > thanks for the answer. ; o) > > > > > > To provide a little more context. We are currently working on a > > per-service > > > repository approach to reduce unwanted cross service usage of internal > > classes > > > and implementations. > > > > > > Every business domain will become a micro service and a single > > repository with > > > multiple modules. > > > > > > Do you think this approach would lead to get asked by ASF to break into > > > multiple projects? It wouldn't be that bad if we'd treat these as > > sub-project of > > > Fineract as the TLP umbrella for them. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Markus > > > > > > .::YAGNI likes a DRY KISS::. > > > > > >
