On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 14:24, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The question was in regard to spin new components? do we need a new vote to > start a new repository? >
I dont believe we actually do need a vote, a lot of stuff doesn't, just establishing consensus on what is being done. Votes are one way of doing that so sometimes thats used all the time. Lazy concensus is another way. Making people clearly aware and giving chance to discuss things and agree a path is the important bit in most cases. I wouldnt expect a new component to pop up in a shared repo much differently than I'd expect a new specific repo to be established for it..i.e not without discussion and agreement on it occurring, ensuring its not a surprise to folks etc...likely stuff which cant happen any faster than the time to take a vote if folks feel that is actually needed. > 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. Yep, and when one thing requires making a major/breaking change, then they all have to say that even though its not true (if the versions reflect that), and/or when most of the things havent changed at all folks get to wonder what changed in each bit. Made worse if a particular plugin ever wanted to support multiple streams, e.g support different major versions of <foo> being plugged in, or work with different major versions of Artemis. All of them have to be in a releasable state at exactly the same time. The build takes longer as more and more [unrelated] things are added. Etc. Less releases isnt necessarily an advantage. > > 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. > Possibly, or that might be reason to do facilitate something more transitional so as to not to break them, which should maybe happen if its considered a supported plugin API. Presumably breaking them all 'deliberately' would be most likely to occur in a major broker release. Also worth considering that not everything need be part of the project. Not requiring that can even a good reason to have certain plugin points in the first place. > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:06 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 2:42 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > 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 < > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> > > 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" < > > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 > >
