+1 Thanks, Eduard
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, sounds good to me too :) > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:05 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > Since the first 2 takes did not pas, I’m making a new proposal taking > into > > account the latest comments and making the minimal changes from the > current > > situation to get a consensus. > > > > Issues to solve > > =============== > > > > * The scope of the code maintained by the XWiki Dev Team (== the xwiki > > github organization) is increasing but the team stays relatively small > > * The more stuff we move into the repos of the xwiki github organization, > > the less easy it is for non-“XWiki Dev Team” committers to participate > and > > we want more contributions > > > > Proposed solution > > ================= > > > > Executive summary: > > * Reduce the scope of all the code located in the xwiki github > > organization by only keeping “core” modules > > * A “core" module is defined by being a generic transversal module (i.e. > > that can be used in lots of XWiki flavors, if not all). This is opposed > to > > “vertical” modules which are modules specific of a usage of XWiki. > > ** Examples of “core" modules: logging module, configuration module, > > distribution wizard, annotations, active installs, one base flavor (the > > “XWiki” flavor), etc > > ** Example of “vertical” modules: meeting manager application, blog > > application, FAQ application, flavors (except the base flavor), etc > > > > Some consequences: > > * We need a new location for several modules that would go out of the > > xwiki github organization repos > > * It would be good that extensions that were developed inside the xwiki > > github organization continue to follow the dev practices of > > http://dev.xwiki.org > > > > Details: > > * We keep the current github organization names for now, i.e. “xwiki” and > > “xwiki-contrib”. > > * Each extension in xwiki-contrib continues to be an island with a leader > > (defined in jira) and continues to be able to decide what dev practices > it > > should follow. The leader continues to be the one to contact when needing > > to perform a release. When the leader goes MIA the next person interested > > in working on the extension can become its new leader. > > * Since extensions moved from the xwiki github organization should > > continue to follow all the practices from http://dev.xwiki.org we need a > > way to indicate this so that code committed against those and PR can be > > reviewed in light of these practices. Thus we should encourage extensions > > to have a README file in each repo in xwiki-contrib that defines what > > practices the extension is following. We’ll also update > contrib.xwiki.org with > > explanations about this (both for extension creators and for contributors > > to them). > > > > Do not forget that you can enforce a lot of practice by defining > constraints in the extension pom for extension in Java, like checkstyles, > etc… which also enforce the quality of coding. Of course this does not > cover everything, but the owner of the repository will surely also check > and review committed code to keep the quality of the extension to a good > level. I am not really afraid by this point, I have already some contrib > extension that follow platform rules, and I have never seen any degradation > yet. > > > > * Note that on contrib.xwiki.org we will propose a generic template for > > README files that should exist for all repos in xwiki-contrib. This > > template will include (but not be limited to): Dev practices to follow, > > Link to e.x.o, Status of the extension (useful to indicate > > non-working/abandoned extensions for example), link to its jira. > > * When moving an extension from the xwiki github org to xwiki-contrib, > > depending on the moved extension, the extension can keep its id (this > > allows the EM upgrade job to propose upgrading it). Whenever possible the > > extension id should be updated to follow the rules of contrib.xwiki.org > (group > > id of org.xwiki.contrib, artifact id matching the rules). In addition, > > since we don’t want to cause API breakages, the java packages can be kept > > as org.xwiki.* till the next large refactoring of the extension, at which > > time it should move to org.xwiki.contrib.*. Similarly the version of the > > moved extension should be kept and not be reset to 1.0-SNAPSHOT. We can > > probably develop some EM tooling in the future to handle relocation of > > extension id transparently. > > > > Please cast your vote. > > > > Here’s my +1 > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > PS: The previous 2 takes were proposal but I’m making it a VOTE now > > because I believe the “XWiki Core” strategy is important enough so that > we > > need to be sure that committers agree (based on our voting rules). > > > > On 2 Aug 2015 at 19:43:18, [email protected] ([email protected] > (mailto: > > [email protected])) wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I’d like to progress with this idea so let me summarize this thread’s > > discussion so far: > > > > > > * +1 from Thomas, Guillaume, Caty and Marius > > > * No answer from Edy on whether he’s ok with the proposal or not. Edy? > :) > > > * Denis seems negative about it but I agree with Thomas’s reply in that > > the points raised by Denis do not concern this discussion. Denis > commented > > about publishing and installing Extensions, whereas this proposal was > only > > about a location for storing some extensions. Extensions can be developed > > anywhere and don’t have to go into this new proposed location. Denis, > could > > you please review this new proposal with this in mind? > > > * There were discussions about the name and devs express doubts about > > using xwiki-contrib-sandbox. > > > > > > I’d like to progress so here’s my second proposal. It differs from the > > first proposal on the following points: > > > > > > * All our code is contributed so I don’t think we need to emphasize > this > > point and I don’t think we need to have “contrib” in the name of the > github > > repos. This will lead to shorter names which is better. > > > * I propose to have 3 github org: > > > ** xwiki-core (currently “xwiki” but we should probably rename it - > > Github will create redirects and the only downside is that we need to > check > > it out for making repo changes) > > > ** xwiki-extensions (new). For maintained and good quality level > > extensions, following the charter defined in the first proposal (we’ll > tune > > it). Committers are added extension by extension and will be voted on the > > devs list for now, by the xwiki core devs (we’ll tune that later on) > > > ** xwiki-incubator (currently “xwiki-contrib” but we should rename it). > > Extensions in xwiki-extensions that are no longer working with the latest > > LTS and that nobody is fixing will move back to xwiki-incubator too. > > > * I propose to change the goal of the contrib.xwiki.org wiki and to > > expand its goal. Right now it’s focused about the xwiki-contrib > > organization on GitHub. I propose to make it the wiki that explains how > to > > make contributions to the XWiki ecosystem in general. We would move > > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Contributing + add pages > > for explaining how to contribute to xwiki-core, xwiki-extensions and > > xwiki-incubator. > > > * ATM we should continue to use the “org.xwiki.contrib" groupid for > code > > in the xwiki-incubator and xwiki-extensions organizations. Ideally we > > should use org.xwiki.extension but it’s already used by the Extension > > module in xwiki-core. An option would have been to use org.xwiki.core for > > the core but that would break too much code so the only option is to keep > > having a special prefix for non-core code. Other ideas: > “org.xwiki.module”, > > “org.xwiki.ext”, “org.xwiki.external”, “org.xwiki.addon”. The simplest is > > to keep “org.xwiki.contrib” I think, WDYT? > > > > > > Once (and if) we agree on this, I’d like to quickly move some existing > > extensions from the xwiki-core organization into xwiki-extensions, > starting > > with the FAQ Application, in order to start testing this new > organization. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > On 3 Dec 2014 at 15:58:36, [email protected] ([email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > > > > > Hi committers (and devs in general), > > > > > > > > I’m submitting to you this idea, to try to improve the xwiki open > > source project and to give it a new dynamism. I believe the topics > > discussed below are made even more important since we’re soon going to > > develop the notion of flavors in XWiki. > > > > > > > > Note that this proposal obsoletes the > > http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km proposal (i.e. the move of > > some extensions in the xwiki github organization), which itself was > > obsoleting http://markmail.org/message/ppw2slpgqou2ihai > > > > > > > > Issues to solve > > > > =============== > > > > > > > > * The scope of the code maintained by the XWiki Dev Team (== the > xwiki > > github organization) is increasing but the team stays relatively small > > > > * The more stuff we move into the repos of the xwiki github > > organization, the less easy it is for non-“XWiki Dev Team” committers to > > participate and we want more contributions > > > > > > > > Proposed solution > > > > ================= > > > > > > > > Executive summary: > > > > * Reduce the scope of all the code located in the xwiki github > > organization by only keeping “core” modules > > > > * A “core" module is defined by being a generic transversal module > > (i.e. that can be used in lots of XWiki flavors, if not all). This is > > opposed to “vertical” modules which are modules specific of a usage of > > XWiki. > > > > ** Examples of “core" modules: logging module, configuration module, > > distribution wizard, statistics application, annotations, active > installs, > > one base flavor (the “XWiki” flavor), etc > > > > ** Example of “vertical” modules: meeting manager application, blog > > application, FAQ application, flavors (except the base flavor), etc > > > > > > > > Some consequences: > > > > * We need a new location for several modules that would go out of the > > xwiki github organization repos > > > > * It would be good to separate sandbox extensions from 1st class > > extensions that are maintained and developed following best practices. We > > need some way to maintain the quality of important extensions > > > > > > > > Detailed Implementation: > > > > * The “xwiki” github organization’s description becomes “XWiki Core” > > (it’s too complex to rename the org to “xwiki-core” IMO) > > > > * “XWiki Dev Team” becomes the “XWiki Core Team” (and committers in > > there are called “XWiki Core Committers”). > > > > * “xwiki-contrib” is split into 2 github organizations (technically > we > > rename it to “xwiki-contrib-sandbox”): > > > > ** “xwiki-contrib-sandbox” (or “xwiki-incubator”), where newly > > proposed extensions or abandoned extensions are located > > > > ** “xwiki-contrib-extensions”, where maintained extensions are > located. > > > > * These 2 organizations are commonly referred to as “XWiki Contrib" > > > > * Same as now, anyone requesting a repo in xwiki-contrib-sandbox > would > > be granted one and he/she’d be given write access to all repos in the > > xwiki-contrib-sandbox organization. > > > > * We define some rules for graduating from xwiki-contrib-sandbox to > > xwiki-contrib-extensions. For example: > > > > ** The extension should have been in xwiki-contrib-sandbox at least 6 > > months (this gives time to see if the extension is maintained during that > > time and will survive the test of time - most extensions will die in the > > first months) > > > > ** The extension should have had more than 2 releases and be > published > > on extensions.xwiki.org(http://extensions.xwiki.org) with documentation > > > > ** The extension should work with the latest LTS version of XWiki + > > the latest stable version of XWiki (right now that would be 5.4.5 + 6.3). > > Note that if the extension has to use new API it’s ok that it doesn’t > work > > on the latest LTS. > > > > ** Generally follow the practices defined at http://dev.xwiki.org > > > > * Each extension in xwiki-extensions has a leader/maintainer. > He/she’s > > the one proposing to move the extension from xwiki-sandbox to > > xwiki-extensions. He/she’s responsible for ensuring that the extension > gets > > regular releases and is maintained in general. He/she defines initially > the > > list of committers in his email proposal for moving the extension. > > > > * We create a PMC (Project Management Committee) for XWiki Contrib, > > generally in charge of both xwiki-contrib-sandbox and > > xwiki-contrib-extensions (voting new extensions in > > xwiki-contrib-extensions, vote new PMC members, etc). To bootstrap it, I > > would send a mail on devs@ asking who’s interested to be part of this > > committee. I expect some core committers + some contrib committers to > stand > > up. > > > > * Contrib extensions keep using the org.xwiki.contrib package name > and > > groupid as currently defined at http://contrib.xwiki.org > > > > > > > > Note: The idea is that xwiki core is developed as a team maintaining > > all code in there, xwiki contrib is developed extension by extension > (each > > extension is an island). This allows anyone to propose extensions in > XWiki > > Contrib without the need for everyone to support them. > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vincent > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > -- > Denis Gervalle > SOFTEC sa - CEO > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
