On Apr 18, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > On 04/17/2011 09:14 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> Hi devs, >> >> I see you've added a new git repo called xwiki-debug-eclipse. I don't quite >> agree with it. >> >> I'd like to propose to move it as a tool (since that's what it is - it's a >> build/debug tool) inside xwiki-enterprise/ >> (https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-enterprise) > > I don't think I agree. Unlike other tools, which contribute to the > project (either as resources that end up in the distribution, or as > tools used while building the distribution), this does not produce > anything. It is not supposed to be compiled or built, it is just a > static set of files and symlinks supposed to ease the debugging of > various parts of XEM.
Actually I was the one who introduced the notion of tools and the idea was a category of modules for things that don't produce anything at runtime (helpers to produce runtime code but not runtime code themselves). Then we started adding stuff such as jetty resources, license, configuration resources, root webapp to it (and even foxwiki which has nothing to do there), which contribute runtime things. Personally I'd be fine to separate again runtime resources from non runtime resources since I don't consider any of the runtime resources as "tools". IMO that's a wrong location for them. OTOH the xwiki-debug-eclipse module is a perfect tool and doesn't contribute anything runtime. > One disadvantage of this "tool" being unreleasable is that the correct > version needed for debugging a certain version of XE/XEM can't be easily > discovered. A way around this is to include it as a submodule of > xwiki-trunks or xwiki-enterprise, so whenever a tag is created (and more > generally for each commit), the right version of the debug project will > be included in the tag as well. > >> I'd also like to propose that: >> 1) we always vote when creating git repositories > > OK. > >> 2) we agree that as a rule git repositories should match top level xwiki >> projects (as we used to have for svn). I don't see a need for more git >> repositories. If you see valid use cases other than when creating top level >> projects please let me know here. I propose this rule to be the default but >> of course it could be violated (with a vote mail, see 1)) if we find a valid >> use case. > > Not convinced. Let's look at what others are doing, and try to determine > what is a best practice (or at least most often used) on github. > > For example, https://github.com/jenkinsci has almost 500 repositories. > so they don't seem to be that reluctant to creating repositories at will. And that's really awkard and bad. try filtering them out on the github page and you'll see what I mean ;) GitHub is lacking a way to organize the list of repositories. But in any case that's not really my point. My point is more to have a consistency in our git repositories and to continue what we have so far till we find it's not good anymore. What we had so far in SVN was that top level projects had top level directories. IMO it's a good starting point for our git repository rule too FTM (till we find we need something different). Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
