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
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:37 AM, [email protected] > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4 Dec 2014 at 10:28:43, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( >> [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > 2014-12-03 15:57 GMT+01:00 [email protected] : >> > >> > > 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 >> > > >> > >> > I prefer xwiki-contrib-incubator because the "sandbox" name gives me the >> > impression of projects that are not serious. I would not like to create a >> > project in a "sandbox", but I would be OK to put it in an "incubator”. >> >> There’s just 2 problems with “incubator”: >> >> 1) we’re going to not have any place to put our extensions/modules that >> are no longer supported… And I’d rather not create another org just for >> that… >> 2) incubator means that it’s a transient location and that the goal is >> always to go in xwiki-contrib-extensions while “sandbox” is more neutral. >> > > I agree with Guillaume, the Sandbox is not motivating, and create for those > who do not catch with the rules a nice place to stay. I agree that it will > push for moving to a better repository, but if it slow down the initial > contribution, there will be nothing to move. Why not keeping the first > naming, even if the rules will differ: xwiki-extensions and xwiki-contrib > (or xwiki-contrib-extensions if you prefer) ? > > >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >> > > ** “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
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:37 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > On 4 Dec 2014 at 10:28:43, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( > [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > Hi > > > > 2014-12-03 15:57 GMT+01:00 [email protected] : > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > I prefer xwiki-contrib-incubator because the "sandbox" name gives me the > > impression of projects that are not serious. I would not like to create a > > project in a "sandbox", but I would be OK to put it in an "incubator”. > > There’s just 2 problems with “incubator”: > > 1) we’re going to not have any place to put our extensions/modules that > are no longer supported… And I’d rather not create another org just for > that… > 2) incubator means that it’s a transient location and that the goal is > always to go in xwiki-contrib-extensions while “sandbox” is more neutral. > I agree with Guillaume, the Sandbox is not motivating, and create for those who do not catch with the rules a nice place to stay. I agree that it will push for moving to a better repository, but if it slow down the initial contribution, there will be nothing to move. Why not keeping the first naming, even if the rules will differ: xwiki-extensions and xwiki-contrib (or xwiki-contrib-extensions if you prefer) ? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > ** “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 versi
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
+1 Thanks, Marius On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, [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 > > ___
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
In theory the proposal sounds good, although it increases the process rules and number of organizations, etc. We still have things to figure out, but it looks ok +1 Thanks, Caty On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > On 4 Dec 2014 at 10:28:43, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( > [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > Hi > > > > 2014-12-03 15:57 GMT+01:00 [email protected] : > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > I prefer xwiki-contrib-incubator because the "sandbox" name gives me the > > impression of projects that are not serious. I would not like to create a > > project in a "sandbox", but I would be OK to put it in an "incubator”. > > There’s just 2 problems with “incubator”: > > 1) we’re going to not have any place to put our extensions/modules that > are no longer supported… And I’d rather not create another org just for > that… > 2) incubator means that it’s a transient location and that the goal is > always to go in xwiki-contrib-extensions while “sandbox” is more neutral. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > ** “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 > > >
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
On 4 Dec 2014 at 10:28:43, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > Hi > > 2014-12-03 15:57 GMT+01:00 [email protected] : > > > 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 > > > > I prefer xwiki-contrib-incubator because the "sandbox" name gives me the > impression of projects that are not serious. I would not like to create a > project in a "sandbox", but I would be OK to put it in an "incubator”. There’s just 2 problems with “incubator”: 1) we’re going to not have any place to put our extensions/modules that are no longer supported… And I’d rather not create another org just for that… 2) incubator means that it’s a transient location and that the goal is always to go in xwiki-contrib-extensions while “sandbox” is more neutral. Thanks -Vincent > > ** “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 c
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
Hi 2014-12-03 15:57 GMT+01:00 [email protected] : > 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 > I prefer xwiki-contrib-incubator because the "sandbox" name gives me the impression of projects that are not serious. I would not like to create a project in a "sandbox", but I would be OK to put it in an "incubator". > ** “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 pro
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
Hi Edy, On 3 Dec 2014 at 22:36:34, Eduard Moraru ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Thomas Mortagne > wrote: > > > Sounds good. +1 > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:57 PM, [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. > > > > So no plan at this point to address > http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/zohkn73srh7dwom4 and This proposal and the one referenced are orthogonal. That said, my proposal does solve a lot of the problem you mention since: - we move several extensions out of xwiki-platform into xwiki-contrib-extensions and thus they’ll have their lifecycle and can specify the dep versions they wish - I have explicitly mentioned in my proposal that a good condition for joining xwiki-contrib-extensions would be that: "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 I said “should” and not “must” since this is hard to do *initially* if we move out extensions from xwiki-platform but as time goes by, XWiki versions will increase but the moved extension doesn’t have to increase its dep versions at the same rate. - what will remain in xwiki-platform i
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
Hi, On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > Sounds good. +1 > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:57 PM, [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. > So no plan at this point to address http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/zohkn73srh7dwom4 and http://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/cuqpsqsxtvslmlkp , right? > > ** Generally follow the practices defined at http://dev.xwiki.org > > * Each extension in xwiki-extensions > xwiki-contrib-extensions > has a leader/maintainer. He/she’s the one proposing to move the extension > from xwiki-sandbox > xwiki-contrib-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. > I propose that all XWiki core committers are, by default, members of this PMC. They can choose not to get involved in every decision, but they should have a voice if t
Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] XWiki Core
Sounds good. +1 On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:57 PM, [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 > > __
