On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Dimiter Naydenov < [email protected]> wrote:
> -----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. > +1 to OP, +1 to this > 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 >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
