Hi Francisco, I've not the slightest doubt that the real discussion should be how we, as human being, want to work all together and to cooperate...
Il Ven 10 Mag 2024, 17:34 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <[email protected]> ha scritto: > Hi Tiago, > What is upstream and what is downstream? > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 5:31 PM Tiago Bento <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > It's not the downstream repos responsibility to expose failures > > upstream. It's the opposite. No repo should have the ability to EVER > > stop downstream contributions. Be it unintentional or not. > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:25 AM Gabriele Cardosi > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > I'll give you an example I recently stumbled upon. > > > The generated rest endpoints also expose some json (the schema) and > this > > > json depends on the model itself. > > > Changing the version of DMN, the required schema also gets modified. > > > But, then, the tooling code would not be able to correctly manage it > > > anymore. > > > In that specific case I'm pretty sure the snapshot would have break the > > ui. > > > Another point could be with the jitexecutor, whose behavior (and then > > > returned object) could be changed, breaking - again - ui. > > > Those are just a couple examples that come to my mind. > > > As you said, they are exposed through REST interfaces, but inside the > > > objects that are sent, it is easy to inadvertently introduce breaking > > > changes (e.g. change a String with a Number as identifier: it could be > > > dealt transparently by backend code, but it may have bad impact on tool > > > side) > > > Of course those are/should be easy to fix, but nevertheless could be an > > > unwanted problem, for the guys that maybe are working on something else > > and > > > suddenly have this to fix. > > > So, on one side I see the point of testing kie-tools with backend > > > snapshots, to find problems as early as possible; on the other side, I > > see > > > how this could impact the work on tooling side. > > > > > > I hope my POV could make sense... > > > > > > Il giorno ven 10 mag 2024 alle ore 17:06 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > < > > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > > HI Gabrielle, > > > > This is an interesting philosophical discussion. I agree that being a > > front > > > > developer requires different skills than being a backend developer. I > > often > > > > discuss with my science computing friends that the full stack > developer > > > > does not exist (as the footballer that can use the two legs evenly > ;)). > > > > Even if some of us are capable of working more or less efficiently on > > both > > > > sides, the truth is that we will always be more efficient as front or > > back > > > > (maybe twenty years ago, when UI were developed as standalone > > applications > > > > in C or Java there was not so clear distinction, but web applications > > (CSS > > > > mayhem), the emergence of several REACT javascript libraries and REST > > > > interfaces changed everything) > > > > That I believe justify keeping backend content in one repo and front > > end > > > > content in another repo. > > > > But what I'm discussing is something different. What I do not really > > get is > > > > what is the problem of testing tooling against mutable snapshot. > > Especially > > > > when the interface between front and back is based, or should be > > based, on > > > > loosely coupled REST interfaces. I hardly see how any change (except > > the > > > > ones affecting REST interface, which will be very rarely changed at > > this > > > > stage) in runtimes can affect tooling. So I feel we are imposing a > > > > condition on the software which is not really needed. > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:15 PM Gabriele Cardosi < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > I also have the same impression about sort of ambiguity and > > decisions not > > > > > made from the beginning. > > > > > I've worked on both the tooling side and the backend, and believe > me > > it > > > > is > > > > > not just "fix as soon as happen" because, in the meantime, there > are > > > > other > > > > > things/priorities to be after. > > > > > To be fair, the tooling guys are already after a big task, and I > see > > > > their > > > > > need to avoid problems as much as possible. > > > > > And that me saying "their need" somehow suggests that there is > > actually > > > > > this sort of separation, due to the completely different > > architectural > > > > > scope, technical stack, etc. > > > > > Maybe first of all we should clearly identify all those details > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 10 mag 2024 alle ore 14:56 Francisco Javier Tirado > > Sarti < > > > > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, > > > > > > I'm just asking for a real use case example of how a change in > the > > back > > > > > end > > > > > > can disrupt more the work of tooling than a change in KIE API can > > > > disrupt > > > > > > runtime work. > > > > > > I believe we are creating an artificial distinction between > > tooling and > > > > > the > > > > > > rest of the software based on historical reasons that no longer > > apply > > > > > once > > > > > > we are moving to a single release. > > > > > > Either we really justify that distinction on technical ground > > (which so > > > > > > far, despite tons of text, in my humble opinion, has not been > > done) or > > > > we > > > > > > change our mindset to the fact that we are now within a single > > release > > > > > > paradigm. > > > > > > And, recurring to history, as some wise man used to say, " A > house > > > > > divided > > > > > > cannot stand" ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 2:50 PM Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're minimizing the disruption in others' planned workload. > You > > > > > > > can't just break other's work and say that sooner the better.. > if > > > > > > > others have to fix, it's up to others define when to fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 8:48 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gabrielle, > > > > > > > > I think a real use case example where a change in the backend > > > > breaks > > > > > > > > tooling work in a way they are fully blocked. > > > > > > > > And, I would argue, if such thing ever occur, then as soon as > > we > > > > > detect > > > > > > > > that, the better. > > > > > > > > Just an example, let's say we change a REST endpoint in a > way, > > > > > runtime > > > > > > > > tooling stops working, the sooner we realize that change is > not > > > > > > > compatible > > > > > > > > with the tool, the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM Gabriele Cardosi < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Enrique, > > > > > > > > > I'm ignoring anything else, but regarding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The other topic you are talking is the build. The question > > was > > > > > > > summarized > > > > > > > > > by Francisco.if we build the repos in order, does kie tool > > able > > > > to > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > properly with the snapshots built in the pipeline or does > > need > > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > > > steps ?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the core of the problem is the following: > > > > > > > > > when we backender made a modification (e.g. in drools repo) > > we > > > > are > > > > > > > somehow > > > > > > > > > responsible to fix eventual break downstream (e.g. > > > > kogito-runtimes, > > > > > > > > > kogito-examples, etc), but we completely ignores the > > tooling, and > > > > > we > > > > > > > won't > > > > > > > > > probably be able to fix it. So, the tooling guys must rely > on > > > > some > > > > > > > "stable" > > > > > > > > > version, otherwise we could break their work on a daily > > basis. > > > > > > > > > This is more or less the situation I found when I joined: > the > > > > > drools > > > > > > > built > > > > > > > > > was separated from the drools-wb one, sometimes > modification > > on > > > > > > drools > > > > > > > repo > > > > > > > > > broke drools-wb, and then they decided to pipeline the > twos, > > to > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > immediate recognition, and fix, of that (at that time, our > > > > > drools-wb > > > > > > > job > > > > > > > > > was to build drools every morning and then start working on > > > > > > drools-wb: > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > something get broken in drools-wb, then we pinged drool > devs > > to > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > reason and eventually make fix). > > > > > > > > > The solutions I see for our situation are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. keep tooling depend on some stable release, > preserving > > > > > > > independence > > > > > > > > > from backender changes > > > > > > > > > 2. enforce/improve cooperation between backender and > > tooling > > > > > guys, > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > that as soon as some breaking change is made by the > > former, > > > > the > > > > > > > latter > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > immediately fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Side notes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. About point 1, I do not think it breaks the "single > > > > product" > > > > > > > rule, > > > > > > > > > because at release time everything should be aligned > > > > > > > > > 2. About point 2, I'm not sure it is so easy to do > > > > > > > > > 3. IMO this is completely transparent regarding where > the > > > > code > > > > > > > lives, > > > > > > > > > and "single CI" means a single build system that > properly > > > > > manages > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > to build > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry if all the above was already clear and obvious to > > everyone > > > > 😀 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gabriele > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 10 mag 2024 alle ore 12:08 Enrique Gonzalez > > > > Martinez > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are mixing stuff here Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR checks are there for guarding that nothing breaks when > > > > > somebody > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > pushing code. If kie tools can break because is not there > > it > > > > > means > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > a problem in there. Keep in mind i am not talking about > the > > > > cause > > > > > > why > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > are missing checks in our PR, it could be resources it > > could be > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The other topic you are talking is the build. The > question > > was > > > > > > > summarized > > > > > > > > > > by Francisco.if we build the repos in order, does kie > tool > > able > > > > > to > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > > properly with the snapshots built in the pipeline or does > > need > > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > > > > steps ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Publishing artifacts is a whole different topic from the > > build. > > > > > > > Regarding > > > > > > > > > > sync multiple deployments from the multirepo build i > guess > > it > > > > > could > > > > > > > be a > > > > > > > > > > problem, but also that is not the question here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El vie, 10 may 2024, 11:55, Alex Porcelli < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiago already provided a in-depth explanation of the > > issue in > > > > > > this > > > > > > > ML, > > > > > > > > > > > that is summarized in the circular dependency thread > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TL;DR: **Today** KIE-Tools is not part of any PR checks > > in > > > > the > > > > > > > runtime > > > > > > > > > > > repositories (drools, optaplanner, runtimes and apps) - > > so a > > > > > > > change in > > > > > > > > > > > those repos can break KIE Tools. If we were to continue > > to > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs, we need unify to a single CI that would > > include > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > repositories - including KIE Tools. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/58xm7pqdyztf7qztmhvntf8wdmvfx7jx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 5:15 AM Francisco Javier Tirado > > Sarti > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tiago, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that, being all the repos part of the > > same > > > > > > release, > > > > > > > > > > mutable > > > > > > > > > > > > snapshot is perfectly acceptable. As it currently > > happens > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > Runtimes > > > > > > > > > > > > repo and Drools repo (which have the Kie api) and > Apps > > repo > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Runtimes > > > > > > > > > > > > repo. I, as I believe Enrique (at least if what I > > > > understood > > > > > > > from his > > > > > > > > > > > > e-mail) , do not understand why tooling should be > > different > > > > > in > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > regard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 1:26 AM Tiago Bento < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zanini and Enrique, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if I'm making it sound differently, but > > > > everything > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > > > > > > is also aiming towards a healthy CI. Not only for > > > > > SonataFlow > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > Tools, > > > > > > > > > > > > > though. For all of Apache KIE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My main point is that mutable Maven SNAPSHOTs are > > harming > > > > > us, > > > > > > > > > giving > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > false impression of synchronization between the > > repos. > > > > It's > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > "easy > > > > > > > > > > > > > way out" we've been historically abusing, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the best advantages of having multiple repos > > is > > > > that > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > be individually developed, tested, and managed. > > However, > > > > by > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maven SNAPSHOTs as the synchronization mechanism, > we > > > > can't > > > > > > > > > guarantee > > > > > > > > > > > > > that, since repos become broken on any given day. > > More > > > > than > > > > > > > that, > > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible to go "back in time" on our development > > > > > branches, > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOT version will always point to latest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read this section from the guidelines of the > > > > SciJava > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/scijava/pom-scijava-base/blob/main/README.md. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Reproducible builds. This rule means no SNAPSHOT > > > > > > > dependencies, no > > > > > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOT parents, and no SNAPSHOT plugin versions. > A > > > > > snapshot > > > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not immutable, which means that code which > > depends on > > > > a > > > > > > > snapshot > > > > > > > > > > > > > may build today, but not build tomorrow, if the > > snapshot > > > > is > > > > > > > later > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed. The best way to avoid this conundrum is to > > never > > > > > > > depend on > > > > > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOT versions. Snapshot are best used for > testing > > > > only; > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > be used transiently, but their use should never > make > > it > > > > > onto > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration branch (e.g., main or master) of a > > project. > > > > See > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > Using > > > > > > > > > > > > > snapshot couplings during development at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://imagej.net/develop/architecture#using-snapshot-couplings-during-development > > > > > > > > > > > > > ." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This summarizes very well the problem I'm trying to > > > > convey > > > > > > > here. Of > > > > > > > > > > > > > course, their words are much more clear than all > the > > > > > > > explanations I > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried giving so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 9:43 AM ricardo zanini > > fernandes > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiago, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, this is a major problem in our current > > structure > > > > > > that > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another thread to discuss. For my proposal is to > at > > > > least > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > > > health > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cloud build platform. We can completely remove UI > > from > > > > > our > > > > > > > images > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SonataFlow space and keep the consoles in > > kie-tools. > > > > Once > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > solve > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > deep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structural problem we have, we can evaluate it > > better. > > > > > What > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be behind and not release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The template image is pretty useful if you really > > want > > > > to > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > DevUI > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the image. You can easily pull the container file > > and > > > > > build > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > image > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during your integration tests and run the tests > you > > > > need. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same in the image. I don't see a waste of > > resources, > > > > but > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > > temporary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alternative until we figure out the deeper > problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, everything "tools" related is in a > > > > single > > > > > > > repo and > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > components are scattered in many other repos. We > > have > > > > to > > > > > > > decide > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono repos (infra-oriented) or context repos > > > > > > > (feature-oriented). > > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have both otherwise the mono repos will start to > > drag > > > > > > others > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > > > > as we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are seeing happening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So IMO, we need first to sit down together and > > have a > > > > new > > > > > > > repo > > > > > > > > > > > structure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > design, perhaps based on components. We need to > > > > evaluate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the time being, we need to move forward at > > least > > > > and > > > > > I > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > live > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration tests at the end of the line using > > final > > > > > > > > > versions/built > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions of the DevUI if needed for SonataFlow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 10:32 AM ricardo zanini > > > > fernandes > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Enrique! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The images are using SNAPSHOTS from > apps/runtimes > > > > > > > currently. > > > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decision in the past to build apps in the > images > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > main/versioned > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch. We are changing this to use > > > > SNAPSHOT/versioned > > > > > > > > > artifacts > > > > > > > > > > > > > published > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Maven. About kie-tools, I don't know either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use immutable snapshots (weekly, > > nightlies) > > > > > > > instead. I'm > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against it. But we do need those for > integration > > > > tests > > > > > or > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > least > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > robust > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI platform to do integration without > snapshots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 5:07 AM Enrique Gonzalez > > > > > Martinez > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Tiago, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think the discussion is related to the graph > > > > > > dependency > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > now. So > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I would keep that in mind. Anyway I am kinda > > > > surprised > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> concepts like (mutable snapshots and using > > snapshot > > > > > > > published > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> timestamps like they are final). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Now I think I understand where the problem > lies > > now; > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > basically > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we had the proper graph dependency project > built > > > > based > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> snapshots everything would build just ok. So > my > > > > > question > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > pretty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> simple, why is it not possible for kie tools > or > > > > kogito > > > > > > > images > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the maven snapshot concept and point out to > the > > last > > > > > > > snapshot > > > > > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (either local or remote) like other maven > > projects > > > > > work. > > > > > > > Is > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> limitation there ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> El mié, 8 may 2024 a las 22:30, Tiago Bento (< > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Zanini! Welcome back, hope you had a > great > > time > > > > > > > during > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > PTO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > If I understand correctly, the way you see > the > > > > > > > integration > > > > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > repos relies heavily on timestamped > SNAPSHOTs. > > > > This > > > > > > way: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 1. `kogito-images` would stop building > > > > > `kogito-apps`, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > rely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > on timestamped SNAPSHOTs being published > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 2. `kie-tools` would start publishing > > timestamped > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > components, so they would be consumed > > downstream > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > `kogito-serverless-operator`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > If that's what you mean, let me elaborate on > > some > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > of this integration model, where we stop > > using the > > > > > > > mutable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 999-SNAPSHOT and start relying more on > > timestamped > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > cross-repo synchronization: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > a. Cross-repo PRs would not be possible > > anymore, > > > > > > > depending > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > repos are involved in the ensemble. This > would > > > > > create > > > > > > > > > > boundaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > between certain groups of our repos, namely: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps --> > > > > > > > > > > > kogito-images --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > kie-tools, --> kogito-serverless-operator. > So > > 4 > > > > > > > "independent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > clusters". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > b. kogito-images, kie-tools, and > > > > > > > kogito-serverless-operator, > > > > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > timestamped SNAPSHOTs between themselves, > > would > > > > make > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > > > > upstream > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > of the three (in this case, > `kogito-images`), > > to > > > > be > > > > > > the > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > what timestamped SNAPSHOT version we should > > use > > > > for > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > upstream > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > dependencies > > > > > > > > > (drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps). > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > details: If `kogito-images` depends on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps` > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 999-20240501, that's the version `kie-tools` > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > `kogito-serverless-operator` need to use as > > well, > > > > as > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps > > > > would > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > > > > > > transitively > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > from the `kogito-images` dependency these > two > > > > repos > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > IMHO, causes a lot of confusion, since the > > dates > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > timestamped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > SNAPSHOT versions have implicit transitive > > > > > > dependencies > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > upstream projects that also have their own > > > > > timestamped > > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > published. I.e., 999-20240501 of `kie-tools` > > won't > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 999-2024051 of > > > > > > > > > > `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > c. Updating dependencies across the board > > would be > > > > > > much > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > difficult, as we would need to rely on a > chain > > > > > > reaction > > > > > > > > > > starting > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > `drools/optaplanner/kogito-runtimes/kogito-apps` > > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > > > > > all the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > way down to `kogito-serverless-operator`, > > > > releasing > > > > > > > > > > timestamped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > SNAPSHOTs and sending PRs for each "cluster" > > along > > > > > the > > > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I'm not sure this is the way we want to move > > > > > forward, > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > > > > honest, > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > these consequences need to be thoroughly > > examined > > > > by > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > community, so that all the side-effects of > > this > > > > > choice > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > clear to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > To conclude, having `kie-tools` building a > > > > "template > > > > > > > image" > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > verify > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > that it will not break > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > > downstream, > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > having `kogito-serverless-operator` building > > parts > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > `kie-tools` to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > incorporate the latest changes, IMHO, is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 1. Duplication of building logic. IMHO, we > > can't > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > individual > > > > > > > > > > > > > repos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > creating its own up- and downstream CI > > systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 2. Conflicting with the timestamped > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > repos, where boundaries are clearly defined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 3. Wasteful use of resources (same that is > > > > happening > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > `kogito-images` building `kogito-apps` right > > now). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I'm sorry for bringing all this to this > > seemingly > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > > > proposal, > > > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I'm afraid taking steps without knowing > where > > > > we're > > > > > > > going > > > > > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > way to move forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Please let me know if I misunderstood > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 3:15 PM ricardo > zanini > > > > > > fernandes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Sorry for the late reply, I was on PTO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Replies inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The `kie-tools` CI is not prepared to > > build > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > `kogito-serverless-operator`, so the way > > > > > > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > references the SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI > > will be > > > > > > > important > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > establish the boundaries between both > > repos. To > > > > > > > further > > > > > > > > > > > develop > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI and have its > > changes > > > > > > > reflect on > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > `kogito-swf-devmode` image, we need to > come > > up > > > > > with > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > both safe, consistent, and enforces > > correctness. > > > > > > > There's > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > fact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > that currently `kie-tools` depends on > > > > timestamped > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Kogito/Drools, while > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > > > 999-SNAPSHOT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > if I'm not mistaken. Can you elaborate a > > little > > > > > bit > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > see this reference being done? Please > > consider > > > > > > > cross-repo > > > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > migrations like the Quarkus 3.8.4 that is > > > > > currently > > > > > > > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > This will make us discuss yet again the > > need of > > > > > > > snapshots > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > components used by the images. The images > > must > > > > be > > > > > > the > > > > > > > end > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > pipeline, where we aggregate every > > component we > > > > > ship > > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > > > > single > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> instance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to release. Yet, they are a core part of > the > > > > cloud > > > > > > > > > platform, > > > > > > > > > > > hence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> part of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the Operator BDD, testing, integration, > and > > > > > > > delivering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Intermediate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> repos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > can't depend on them unless they are also > > > > > > responsible > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintenance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > release like what we're doing with the > > consoles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Also, the images can have a respin anytime > > we > > > > > need a > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > component > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bump. We > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > do this all the time to fix CVEs or bug > > fixes > > > > in a > > > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > component > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > is part of the image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > The devui can be developed and maintained > > within > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > kie-tools > > > > > > > > > > > > > repo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > have tests that verify that component. The > > > > > > integration > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Images/Operator side once we grab a latest > > > > > snapshot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > do: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > 1. The tools CI can fetch a template > image, > > > > inject > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > component, > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> run > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the required tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > 2. The image/operator CI can fetch and > > build the > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > > > components and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> run the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > integration tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Also, regarding point "4. Review the PR > > GHA > > > > > checks > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > once there's a change in the cmd module" > of > > the > > > > > > > proposed > > > > > > > > > > > EPIC, I > > > > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > we might run into problems, since the > `cmd` > > > > module > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > depends > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > `api` and `workflowproj` modules of > > > > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator.` > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > afraid changes made to these two modules > > would > > > > > also > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > build of the `cmd` module, and they can > > > > > potentially > > > > > > > break > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Sorry to not get into details there, but > > the new > > > > > cmd > > > > > > > > > module > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> part of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the Operator's workspace, any changes in > any > > > > cross > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > trigger the CI checks, as we are doing > > today in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > builder > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > workflowproj modules. It will be way > easier > > to > > > > > > > maintain > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > CLI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > These considerations alone, IMHO, expose > > one > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > biggest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> challenges > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > we have in our community right now, which > is > > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > definition > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > implementation of the dependency graph > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > > repos/modules/packages > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > is currently spread across many different > > "build > > > > > > > systems", > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > new proposed GHA jobs exclusive to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > repo, the Build Chain system we have for > the > > > > > > > Drools/Kogito > > > > > > > > > > > repos, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > `kie-tools` CI, and the many Jenkins jobs > we > > > > have > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > Apache's > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenkins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > There's also the fact that we have > > > > `kogito-images` > > > > > > > > > > selectively > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > building parts of `kogito-apps` during its > > own > > > > > build > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > in the images it produces. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I agree. We would need to sit together and > > solve > > > > > > this > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > > team, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> having a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > nice integration across every repo. The > > > > > > kogito-images > > > > > > > > > > building > > > > > > > > > > > > > parts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > apps is something we currently working on, > > IIRC. > > > > > The > > > > > > > apps > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > deploy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > snapshot as part of the nightlies and the > > images > > > > > > will > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > using it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I just think it is important to > highlight > > that > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > only address a LOCAL problem related > > exclusively > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > SonataFlow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > section of the Apache KIE community, > while, > > at > > > > the > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > contributing to reducing the segmentation > > of the > > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > > KIE > > > > > > > > > > > > > community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Yes, the proposal is to starting > addressing > > the > > > > > > local > > > > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > > > > KIE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SonataFlow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Cloud platform first. But I agree that we > > need > > > > to > > > > > > > refactor > > > > > > > > > > > our CI > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > whole, which is something we should start > > in a > > > > new > > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:02 PM Tiago > > Bento < > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Zanini and Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The task we agreed on for after > releasing > > > > Apache > > > > > > > KIE 10 > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1040 > > . > > > > > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > describes deleting the temporary copies > > we'll > > > > > have > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > KIE > > > > > > > > > > > Tools > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > reverting things back to where they > were, > > > > using > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > > > > 10.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Moving `kn-plugin-workflow` and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > `kogito-swf-{devmode,builder}` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > images to `kogito-serverless-operator` > > would > > > > be > > > > > a > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > move, > > > > > > > > > > > > > which I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > understand is the scope of this proposal > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Doing so, however, will make > > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > > > > > depend on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kie-tools`, since the SonataFlow > Quarkus > > Dev > > > > UI > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > hosted > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> now, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and it is a dependency of the > > > > > `kogito-swf-devmode` > > > > > > > > > image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm saying this because I think we need > to > > > > > further > > > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > consequences of this change... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > The `kie-tools` CI is not prepared to > > build > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kogito-serverless-operator`, so the way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > references the SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI > > will > > > > be > > > > > > > > > important > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > establish the boundaries between both > > repos. > > > > To > > > > > > > further > > > > > > > > > > > develop > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > SonataFlow Quarkus Dev UI and have its > > changes > > > > > > > reflect > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kogito-swf-devmode` image, we need to > > come up > > > > > > with > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > both safe, consistent, and enforces > > > > correctness. > > > > > > > There's > > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> fact > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that currently `kie-tools` depends on > > > > > timestamped > > > > > > > > > > SNAPSHOTs > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Kogito/Drools, while > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > > > 999-SNAPSHOT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > if I'm not mistaken. Can you elaborate a > > > > little > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > see this reference being done? Please > > consider > > > > > > > > > cross-repo > > > > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> big > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > migrations like the Quarkus 3.8.4 that > is > > > > > > currently > > > > > > > > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Also, regarding point "4. Review the PR > > GHA > > > > > checks > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > once there's a change in the cmd module" > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > proposed > > > > > > > > > > > EPIC, I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > we might run into problems, since the > > `cmd` > > > > > module > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > depends > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `api` and `workflowproj` modules of > > > > > > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator.` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > afraid changes made to these two modules > > would > > > > > > also > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > trigger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > build of the `cmd` module, and they can > > > > > > potentially > > > > > > > > > break > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > These considerations alone, IMHO, expose > > one > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > biggest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> challenges > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > we have in our community right now, > which > > is > > > > > that > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > implementation of the dependency graph > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> repos/modules/packages > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > is currently spread across many > different > > > > "build > > > > > > > > > systems", > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > new proposed GHA jobs exclusive to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > `kogito-serverless-operator` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > repo, the Build Chain system we have for > > the > > > > > > > > > Drools/Kogito > > > > > > > > > > > > > repos, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kie-tools` CI, and the many Jenkins > jobs > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Jenkins. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > There's also the fact that we have > > > > > `kogito-images` > > > > > > > > > > > selectively > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > building parts of `kogito-apps` during > > its own > > > > > > > build to > > > > > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in the images it produces. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > With all that said, I'm not opposed to > > moving > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> `kn-workflow-plugin` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > package from `kie-tools` to the `cmd` > > module > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > `kogito-serverless-operator`. In fact, > > like I > > > > > said > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > past, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > think it makes a lot of sense that > they're > > > > part > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > compilation unit, as they're very > closely > > > > > related, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > therefore be in sync at all times. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I just think it is important to > highlight > > that > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > only address a LOCAL problem related > > > > exclusively > > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > SonataFlow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > section of the Apache KIE community, > > while, at > > > > > the > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > time, > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > contributing to reducing the > segmentation > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > > > KIE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > as a whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 4:08 PM ricardo > > zanini > > > > > > > fernandes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, in the proposal we just barely > > > > outlined. > > > > > I > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > EPIC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > more details and start working on them > > as > > > > soon > > > > > > as > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 4:24 PM Alex > > > > Porcelli > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you for outlining the tasks > > post the > > > > > > 10.x > > > > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > important to note that these are > > already > > > > > > > included in > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > amended > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > proposal [1], specifically in steps > 9 > > and > > > > > 10, > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> community has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > voted on. If there are concerns > about > > the > > > > > > > execution > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> steps, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'd like to reassure you that they > > will > > > > > > proceed > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > planned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > compliance with Apache guidelines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Looking ahead, after the release of > > > > version > > > > > > 10, > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> agreed that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > we'll need to have a thorough > > discussion > > > > > > > regarding > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > structure. This will allow us to > > refine > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > understanding > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sub-brands, their > interrelationships, > > and > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > strategic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> positioning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree that this is crucial for our > > next > > > > > > steps > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > look > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> forward to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > our collaborative efforts in shaping > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/pw327lkpmy9gxklq4t5zbwzxjo2y3c0w > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:50 PM > > ricardo > > > > > zanini > > > > > > > > > > fernandes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've outlined the tasks we need > > once we > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > 10.x > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> kie-tools: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1102 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Once we release, we can detail > this > > > > > planning > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > start > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> working on it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > have a streamlined process for the > > next > > > > > > > releas
