-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think having a separate juju/api repo containing the api client as a reusable library will definitely improve collaboration/integration with external projects. It will require some refactoring to make it easier to reuse, but that's also a good thing. We should split the agent api and client api so the latter can move in a separate repo, but leave the former in juju-core.
The apiserver should remain in juju/juju as it's closely tied with the state package and it does not make sense to have it separately (as long as state is also in juju-core). However, this should not be done at the expense of more complicated workflow: juju/api should be treated the same way as juju/juju - CI gated merges, bot running integration / upgrade tests, RB integration. Happy holidays ;) Dimiter On 19.12.2014 15:43, David Cheney wrote: > There is no reason for the 130 (at last count) packages that > constitute juju-core (not counting the dozens of other packages we > bring in as dependencies) to live in the same repository. > > If licensing is the lever that we use to break up this monolithic > repository, consider me +1 > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kapil Thangavelu > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Nate Finch >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> While I am generally for using more permissive licenses, I'm >>> not sure how useful that might be... most significant changes >>> require modifications to both the client and the server, or at >>> least to libraries used by both. >> >> >> That sort of misses the point of building apps that use juju >> apis. Yes the two packages need to be updated together for new >> changes same as today. >> >>> >>> There's not that much code under cmd/juju compared to the whole >>> rest of the repo. >> >> >> Again its not about that code, its about building other >> applications and facilitating integrations. >> >> >> cheers, Kapil >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Kapil Thangavelu >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> one of the issues with having it in tree, means client usage >>>> falls under the AGPL. We want to have the client used widely >>>> under a more permissive license. I've already had >>>> contributions to other projects n'acked due to license on our >>>> libraries. I'd like to see it moved to a separate repo so >>>> that's possible. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> cheers, Kapil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify >>>> settings or unsubscribe at: >>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >>>> >> >> -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify >> settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >> > - -- Dimiter Naydenov <[email protected]> juju-core team -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUlC8pAAoJENzxV2TbLzHweucH/39/0D1WQt9pNT2yFrFb+Bt8 JNO0shKqC1Spyblqn7WKI32H7unWVcI4qF2PMYdm3wYA84Xx+ySbislIRv5fJbPo 9ex90IfKJxeEvE6Oq8guavQz6FR7Ks9BzZDnuQUt+gVeZP2QyPwu3v4963ZGIch2 vVOPwR+B9hr+eah00o8HSX2qx7ycdAxuB+yEL0Yg5gBpEcHSACcChBKiF/WAk4wc rhEAbHDH5DdjbBmE6pJtaGavd5bs/FEsh5OgdFh5YEOSth5B9aRg9DhyzbouYr8Y RhVu7LiewnQxpq0kyiAjl4Mjzk4m6pT7/uzzoUqPgX7Q0A6OS/bj9fXghDs7Gpo= =PWBM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
