Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core - Second take
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > I am still not convince by your proposal of splitting in two organizations > xwiki-extension and xwiki-incubator. What is really the benefit ? > > IMO, this does not provide any, but will have an annoying disadvantage, the > need to move source code from one organization to the other. Moving source > code repositories is always the source of annoyance, just see how fast the > history aspect has been raised in the thread. Moreover, as I said earlier, > some extension may be good quality at its first release. I agree that moving repos (i.e. the source code) back and forth between xwiki-extensions and xwiki-incubator is an overhead we should try to avoid. Ideally the source code should remain in the same place and we should just "tag" (mark) the repo based on our needs. We can distinguish high quality extensions at maven level (by publising the artifacts in a separte maven repo), as Denis suggested. This has the advantage that we can promote high quality extensions independent of the place where their source code is (xwiki-contrib or personal repo). Afterall, when we configure the Extension Manager we specify artifact repos not source repos. > > Again, I am under the impression that two different aspects are mixed here: > source code location, and binary artefact publication. > > So my proposal is to only have 2 organizations, like today (maybe renamed > xwiki-core and xwiki-extensions for more clarity), and to move extension > out of the core to the contrib (extension) organization in individual > repository (using git subtree as suggested by Thomas). > > This is simpler and I do not see any drawbacks for the purpose you pursue. > The rest will be, as Thomas mentioned, a matter of artefact publications, > something really unrelated with the location of sources, and as you > mentioned, that may be discussed in a separate thread. > > WDYT ? > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:43 PM, [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
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core - Second take
Hi Vincent, I am still not convince by your proposal of splitting in two organizations xwiki-extension and xwiki-incubator. What is really the benefit ? IMO, this does not provide any, but will have an annoying disadvantage, the need to move source code from one organization to the other. Moving source code repositories is always the source of annoyance, just see how fast the history aspect has been raised in the thread. Moreover, as I said earlier, some extension may be good quality at its first release. Again, I am under the impression that two different aspects are mixed here: source code location, and binary artefact publication. So my proposal is to only have 2 organizations, like today (maybe renamed xwiki-core and xwiki-extensions for more clarity), and to move extension out of the core to the contrib (extension) organization in individual repository (using git subtree as suggested by Thomas). This is simpler and I do not see any drawbacks for the purpose you pursue. The rest will be, as Thomas mentioned, a matter of artefact publications, something really unrelated with the location of sources, and as you mentioned, that may be discussed in a separate thread. WDYT ? On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:43 PM, [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
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core - Second take
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Eduard Moraru wrote: > Hi, > > I have re-read the original thread and scanned the remarks done by Denis > and I have to say that I kind of agree with him on some aspects (or at > least with what I understood from his message since I scanned it quite > quickly). > > Basically, I also don`t see much point/value in splitting the code into > multiple repositories. IMO, we should only have the xwiki and the contrib > organisations and move as much as possible from xwiki to contrib, i.e. move > what you call "vertical" extensions to contrib, where everybody can easily > contribute like they would to any other extension. > > In terms or differentiating between quality, it should just be a matter of > community feedback and what the community values to be of quality or not. > In other words: ratings, votes, likes, whatever. > > The community does not hit the code repositories first to look at where the > code is located, but the other way around. A user first hits the XWiki > Extensions repository (extensions.xwiki.org) or the Extension Manager UI > where he is interested on searching for his needs and deciding based on > ratings, community feedback, featured extensions, etc. which result is best > for him. > > IMO, raising the administrative complexity of the community will not help > us work faster/better and will not simplify the contribution process for > outsiders, but rather the opposite. > > Additionally, there is nothing stopping us, or anybody else for the matter, > from setting up additional extension repositories where only hand-picked > extensions are published and where users can get certain levels of > guarantees on quality, support, etc. But, like Denis say saying, this is > about the artefacts, not about the sources. > > If we are worried about people from contrib making bad commits on > high-profile contrib extensions, we can easily revert and warn the > misbehaving user. On 3 strikes he's out. Personally, I find this much > simpler and in line with our wishes to simplify administrative tasks (and a > bit in line with what we have done for jira where we are giving users more > power in handling issues). > > Thanks, > Eduard > > P.S.: A reminder to whoever will be doing the moving of code from one repo > to another: please! reference the source repository and the source commit > ID so that when we use blaim we don`t reach a dead end. Specially if there > is no jira issue to track the move, the history is lost to oblivion. (I > know it is technically still there, but it's almost impossible to find) Actually on that subject what I do is copying the history (using the great "git subtree" extension). See https://github.com/xwiki-contrib/xwiki-platform-cache-oscache that I moved recently for example. > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Gabriela Smeria > wrote: > >> Hello Vincent, >> >> Here's my +1 for this proposal. >> I strongly agree with one change, because I also had it in mind for a while >> now. And that is: moving the "vertical" modules out of the xwiki github >> organization repos, since it would be easier for contributors to >> participate in improving and/or adding extensions and also, IMO, it will >> decrease the build time. >> >> Thanks, >> Gabriela >> >> *Gabriela Smeria* >> *Web Developer* >> [email protected] >> skype: smeria.gabriela >> >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:43 PM, [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 >>
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core - Second take
Hi, I have re-read the original thread and scanned the remarks done by Denis and I have to say that I kind of agree with him on some aspects (or at least with what I understood from his message since I scanned it quite quickly). Basically, I also don`t see much point/value in splitting the code into multiple repositories. IMO, we should only have the xwiki and the contrib organisations and move as much as possible from xwiki to contrib, i.e. move what you call "vertical" extensions to contrib, where everybody can easily contribute like they would to any other extension. In terms or differentiating between quality, it should just be a matter of community feedback and what the community values to be of quality or not. In other words: ratings, votes, likes, whatever. The community does not hit the code repositories first to look at where the code is located, but the other way around. A user first hits the XWiki Extensions repository (extensions.xwiki.org) or the Extension Manager UI where he is interested on searching for his needs and deciding based on ratings, community feedback, featured extensions, etc. which result is best for him. IMO, raising the administrative complexity of the community will not help us work faster/better and will not simplify the contribution process for outsiders, but rather the opposite. Additionally, there is nothing stopping us, or anybody else for the matter, from setting up additional extension repositories where only hand-picked extensions are published and where users can get certain levels of guarantees on quality, support, etc. But, like Denis say saying, this is about the artefacts, not about the sources. If we are worried about people from contrib making bad commits on high-profile contrib extensions, we can easily revert and warn the misbehaving user. On 3 strikes he's out. Personally, I find this much simpler and in line with our wishes to simplify administrative tasks (and a bit in line with what we have done for jira where we are giving users more power in handling issues). Thanks, Eduard P.S.: A reminder to whoever will be doing the moving of code from one repo to another: please! reference the source repository and the source commit ID so that when we use blaim we don`t reach a dead end. Specially if there is no jira issue to track the move, the history is lost to oblivion. (I know it is technically still there, but it's almost impossible to find) On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Gabriela Smeria wrote: > Hello Vincent, > > Here's my +1 for this proposal. > I strongly agree with one change, because I also had it in mind for a while > now. And that is: moving the "vertical" modules out of the xwiki github > organization repos, since it would be easier for contributors to > participate in improving and/or adding extensions and also, IMO, it will > decrease the build time. > > Thanks, > Gabriela > > *Gabriela Smeria* > *Web Developer* > [email protected] > skype: smeria.gabriela > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:43 PM, [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 goa
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core - Second take
Hello Vincent, Here's my +1 for this proposal. I strongly agree with one change, because I also had it in mind for a while now. And that is: moving the "vertical" modules out of the xwiki github organization repos, since it would be easier for contributors to participate in improving and/or adding extensions and also, IMO, it will decrease the build time. Thanks, Gabriela *Gabriela Smeria* *Web Developer* [email protected] skype: smeria.gabriela On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:43 PM, [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 op
[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core - Second take
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 ext
