Re: oak-run, diet and new module

On 10/02/2017 14:01, Thomas Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > What about moving benchmarks to a new module oak-benchmark? I'm not sure > if it's feasible, and not sure if it would reduce the size a lot. But it > is easy to understand, where oak-operations and oak-development is quite > fuzzy. Reflecting

Re: oak-run, diet and new module

Hi, On 10/02/17 10:09, "Francesco Mari" wrote: > As much as I like the proposal of slimming down oak-run, I think that > dividing oak-run in oak-operations and oak-development is the wrong > way to go. This kind of division is horizontal, since commands > pertaining to

Re: oak-run, diet and new module

As much as I like the proposal of slimming down oak-run, I think that dividing oak-run in oak-operations and oak-development is the wrong way to go. This kind of division is horizontal, since commands pertaining to different persistence backends are grouped together according to their roles. This

Re: oak-run, diet and new module

hi davide could you elaborate a bit on your proposal? from the names (oak-operations and oak-development) it's not clear to me what code would go into which module... also i am not sure about deleting oak-run. for the sake of limiting impact (also when it comes to the backport you mention later

oak-run, diet and new module

hello team, while having a bit of time I resumed the topic grouped in the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-5599. Part of the discussion we already had in the past 1 or two years is that oak-run is big and begin to be a challenge during releases and the fact that we could split