On Sun Feb 08 2015 at 5:44:19 AM Christopher Geer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 6, 2015, at 4:07 AM, Gustavo Monarin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Christopher, > > > > I haven't though about splinting into two repos at first, but i believe > > this independence gives us good benefits about the versioning and even > more > > if we think about a possible jsp view version retirement. > > > > Could you give more details more about "Not sure the need for NPM > packaging > > though” ? > > I’m not sure why the rave portal needs to be packaged as a NPM package. I > agree we need to use NPM for the grunt functions but I don’t see us > publishing a NPM package as a deliverable. > > > > One possible approach could be to do it iteratively, in small steps, > > splitting it first and after promoting it to a new repository(I don't > > believe it would be a big overhead) , eg: > > > > * Split the rave-portal, extracting the rest api to an self contained > > bundle. (i have some of this done in a local angular branch) > > * Move/Simplify the npm/grunt package to handle only the angular/js > > version of portal, not being aware of the server side. > > I’d just bite the bullet and do it ;) But that’s just me. I’ve actually > got the projects split on my local box. > I think we should remove all of the existing Spring-Web front end as part of this. If we just dig in and remove the existing controllers, tags, JSPs, etc and figure out how to do it right, we can always refer to the 0.25 release tag to make sure we covered everything. > > Matt, can we use a Github repo to use to refactor and then upload back to > Apache hardware once we know what we want to do? Probably not but just a > thought. > If you did it as a PR, but it would likely be easier to ask INFRA for a new git repo to hold the front-end and just pull code over from the current repo. > > > > Regards > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Christopher Geer <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri Jan 30 2015 at 6:46:48 PM Chris Geer <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just to clarify, are we talking about splitting the UI and backend > into > >> two > >>>> separate Git repos? If not, I'd propose that is the way to go. That > >> allows > >>>> us to release each one individually. Not sure the need for NPM > packaging > >>>> though...you'll have to explain that. > >>>> > >>> > >>> The only reason not to do separate git repos would be for the release > of > >> a > >>> combined "demo" artifact. > >>> > >> Yes, but that could still be managed. And the demo could reference both > >> version numbers. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Matt Franklin < > >> [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Once RAVE-1293 is merged, I propose we release 0.24, merge the > angular > >>>>> branch into the master branch, revamp the static resource > organization > >> to > >>>>> put all of the javascript/html modules into proper npm packaging. > >>>>> > >>>>> With this complete, we can release 0.25 with no major changes, but > >>>>> including some of the angular work. After 0.25, I propose we push > for > >> a > >>>>> hard split of the API and front-end, including driving more > modularity > >>>> into > >>>>> the API features. This will be a longer push, so under this > proposal, > >>>> 0.25 > >>>>> will remain as the last "stable" release under the old paradigm, with > >>>>> 0.26 + representing a new method of building on the project. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thoughts? Assuming lazy consensus, I will start the 0.24 release as > >> soon > >>>>> as RAVE-1293 is merged. > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Gustavo Monarin de Sousa > >
