The question was in regard to spin new components? do we need a new vote to start a new repository?
Regarding the releases... we could release them altogether. Say... ActiveMQ-Artemis-plugin 1.0 Later on, when you add a new feature, you will have 1.1, 1.2... and thereafter. Say we changed something on the broker that will require update in all of them/// we will need a lot of votes to go out. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:06 AM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > A vote would be required for each independently released thing, yes. > That is true whether they are in specific repos or in an single repo > but still released independently, so the only difference would come if > releasing all plugins in that single repo as 'one thing'. That > probably mean less releases, but likely also more complicated ones as > grouping essentially indpendent bits into a single release tends to > add its own challenges. That can tend to make them happen less often, > and encourages them to be 'bigger' as folk stuff things in, which then > makes them more complicated again, etc... > > Release votes dont need to be especially difficult. I've found the > more targetted and/or regular they are, the easier doing them tends to > become. I've run around 30 or so in the last year across a few > components, but would have preferred to do more than I actually did. > > Robbie > > On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 20:12, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 2:42 PM Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I probably would do one each, yes. Its the easiest separation, keeps > > > things independent and focused from the start and can avoid various > > > hassles later. > > > > > > I'd perhaps consider 'all <foo> stuff' aggregation (e.g foo = > > > metrics), but really I dont personally see the benefits as outweighing > > > the other things a lot of the time. I dont think anyone is charging us > > > per repo. > > > > No, but does it require a vote each time we spin a new component? > > > > > > > > > > With a shared repo I guess you would just tag everything, or else > > > start down the route of complications that also make individual repos > > > seem nice. Could use Subversion, subdir tags were easy there :) > > > > > > (Aside, there is one project, ActiveMQ. These would be components). > > > > > > On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree with you, and that was my preference as well. I was trying to > > > > understand if one git per component is what Robbie was suggesting. > > > > > > > > Although there's an issue though, when you have one super git for > many > > > > independent components, how would you tag releases? > > > > > > > > each fodler would be in fact an independent project, with no > > > > correlation between the projects. > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:00 AM <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think one git repo per thing maybecome a bit too scattery. Id go > for one repo with multiple modules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:42 PM +0100, "Clebert Suconic" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:25 PM Robbie Gemmell > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I would put them outwith the broker repository. Not really > because of > > > > > > bloat, which was only a very small part of why I didnt think the > > > > > > proposed Kafka Bridge should live inside the broker repo+package > for > > > > > > example, but thats certainly also something to keep in mind > given the > > > > > > build is pretty large/slow already. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldnt say a single plugin repository is necessarily a great > idea, > > > > > > it can tend to become a bit of a dumping ground for > idea-of-the-week, > > > > > > but the main thing for me would be that components should be > > > > > > independently released if there were to be a bunch of optional > > > > > > components with mostly unrelated functionality in the same place > (e.g, > > > > > > the ideas mentioned in this thread already seem mostly > independent). > > > > > > > > > > So, what do you suggest? one gitRepo per plugin? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic >
