Thanks Dennis!

On 05/01/2008, at 9:49 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:

Dennis Lundberg wrote:
I have created new JIRA projects for those "production plugins" that
didn't one before:

axistools - MAXISTOOLS
build-helper - MBUILDHELPER
findbugs - MFINDBUGS
idlj - MIDLJ
jaxb2 - MJAXB
netbeans-freeform - MNETBEANSFREEFORM
ounce - MOUNCE
sql - MSQL

I have put Brett as the project lead for all of these. Feel free to
relieve him of that responsibility.

All issues, including closed ones, have been moved from MOJO to the new
JIRA project for each of the above plugins.

No issues have been assigned to any fix version in JIRA. That's because I haven't got a clue what to assign them to. If you know more than me on
that, please dive in and assign fix versions for them.

The corresponding component in the MOJO JIRA project have been deleted.

All released production versions have been added to JIRA for each of the above plugins. I used the timestamps from svn as release dates. There is
also one unreleased version for each plugin. The number for that
upcoming version has been taken from the <version> element in the
pom.xml that is in svn trunk.

Still need to update poms with the new issueManagement urls.

This has been done now.

Dennis Lundberg wrote:
+1 to most of the ideas you have proposed. I can help out with 4 iii and iv.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to separate production and pre- release in SVN though. The site I can understand, to give our users a better sense
of which plugins are ready and which ones aren't quite there yet.

What would be the gain of separating them in SVN?

Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,

I think Mojo is in need of another clean up. I know some stuff has been done (particularly with docs), and it has been improving - but I have a few more suggestions that might help with the problems I experienced as
a user coming in yesterday.

I was in the position of kind of knowing that what I needed was here, but wasn't able to find it on the site... then once I found it's site it didn't really instruct me what to do. So now I'm doing the open source
thing and looking to patch it up and though it's had releases, it
doesn't have it's own JIRA project and there are quite a number of open
issues for it in the group project. As a contributor I'm faced with
either a lot of work or a high risk of my issue getting lost in the
noise. I think this story might apply to a number of plugins - and it
drags the reputation of Mojo as a whole down, despite the fact that
there's definitely some gold in here.

I think we need to recognise Mojo as a collective rather than a project - and each plugin is basically independent. Each should make or break itself based on its own quality without affecting the perception of the collective as a whole. Mojo should offer the facilities to make it easy
to fit in, but not try and tie everything together.

So, here's what I propose:

1) give every released plugin it's own trunk, and separate the parent
POM (much like Maven's parent POM).

We can still have externals to pull down everything, but I think we have no need for a "build everything" POM in general use (we can still add one as a convenience, but it would not be the parent of the mojos). This recognises each plugin has it's own development cycle and can be more
easily tracked.

2) Make a separate module for the site

This will not have releases, as it's just the website (and we may wish to switch to using confluence export?). It houses living documents about
the project and links to / info about the various plugins.

3) create a separate sandbox with no tags/branches/trunk

This is a collection of plugins that have just been started and never released. This will be what the generic MOJO JIRA project will be used for (component per plugin, as now - but no releases so no versions).
Plugins can have a site under /sandbox/plugin-name.

4) Split all other plugins into two groups: production and pre- release
(both in SVN and on the site)

I see this as key in the clean up - basically where we change the
perception by making the high quality stuff the most visible, and set
the right expectations on the rest.

Here are the criteria I envisage:
i) anything that is not yet consistently licensed is pre-release (there a number of plugins suffering from this - such as those marked with the ASF's header by accident). Mojo only has a license type preference, not a restriction (other than it must be open source, as Codehaus dictates) - but it does have to be properly licensed under the one it has chosen.

ii) anything with an alpha, beta, gamma, omega or RC in the version is pre-release. I'm not sure what to do with something that is currently production and then goes into a pre-release cycle on trunk - maybe it
would be displayed separately in the two sections of the site. But
anything that has not yet reached final can not be in the production area.

iii) anything without a docck compliant site is pre-release.

iv) every project in either group must have a JIRA project, with a
complete set of versions

We may even want to increase this criteria in future to encompass
certain quality levels like javadoc and test coverage - but I think the
above is a good start.

5) Anything with submodules should have it's own group Id (including the
plugin)

So, I'm happy to start working on this (consider it my Christmas present
to you all :D) - are there any objections?

Cheers,
Brett




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

  http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email







--
Dennis Lundberg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

Reply via email to