Agree on my side, the api should stay part of brooklyn-core.
Hadrian
On 11/18/2015 02:57 AM, Svetoslav Neykov wrote:
+1 for the three repos and history cleanup.
I don't think brooklyn-api is useful on it's own, it's tightly coupled to core.
Better to stay in the same repo, at least for the time being.
Svet.
On 17.11.2015 г., at 21:08, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
I think the main motivation for a split would be different release cycles. For
instance it makes sense to have the UI evolve separately and the core and the
ui can have their own release cycles (as long as the API remains the same).
It's not clear cut, but I see the REST api staying the the core (brooklyn-core
could be a less confusing name than just brooklyn).
My $0.02,
Hadrian
On 11/17/2015 01:56 PM, Aled Sage wrote:
+1
We could also break apart software/webapp/ into separate modules, to
version separately tomcat, JBoss AS, etc.
Would those be just different directories with the repo
"brooklyn-library" presumably?
I think we leave brooklyn-api where it is (i.e. inside /apache/brooklyn).
Does the REST api go in apache/brooklyn or apache/brooklyn-ui?
Aled
On 17/11/2015 18:04, Sam Corbett wrote:
Big +1 to breaking the version link between everything in software/ (but
base/) and the main repository. It is silly that many entities (I'm
thinking of you, TomcatServer) are broken out-of-the-box as soon as the
maintainers of the software have the temerity to release a new version.
The UI is a good candidate to separate too.
I have no opinion on brooklyn-api. Have we reached a stable enough point
for it to be considered very rarely changing?
On 17 November 2015 at 17:44, Alex Heneveld
<[email protected]
wrote:
+1 to removing the large artifacts; it's just stupid having them there.
Personally I would like to see the apache/incubator-brooklyn carved
up as
follows:
* apache/brooklyn
* apache/brooklyn-ui
* apache/brooklyn-library
The third one contains all the concrete items, like jboss and tomcat and
cassandra etc. The UI is the jsgui.
The first one is the main one, with everything else, including CLI and
REST API, vanilla software process, and jclouds locations and osgi.
The only other thing I'm wondering is whether brooklyn-api should be
separate, and very rarely changing. This would allow us potentially
to run
different versions of brooklyn-* in the same system, using the magic of
OSGi.
WDYT?
Best
Alex
On 17/11/2015 17:03, Richard Downer wrote:
Hi Hadrian,
I don't think there's any need to split the repository (although I've
no strong opinions on this, if someone else has an idea).
However there has been a long-standing issue with our repository's
history - in the dim and distant past, binary artifacts of Tomcat etc.
used for testing were committed to the repository. These are long
gone, but they still exist in the git history, and everybody is forced
to clone these large artifacts.
Could we use the graduation migration as an opportunity to rewrite the
git history to permanently remove these large artifacts? It'd result
in a much quicker clone of the repo for new contributors to Brooklyn.
Richard.
On 17 November 2015 at 00:58, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello Brooklyners,
The Brooklyn graduation resolution is again on the board agenda. This
time I
paid paranoid attention to details and I hope the stars to be better
aligned.
Assuming all goes well, there will be a few tasks to take care post
graduation, mostly related to dropping the "incubating" suffix.
Part of
that
process it is possible to split the git repository into multiple
smaller
ones. It is possible to do it later, but doing it now would be
easier and
more natural, I think.
Therefore, if anybody has any idea or proposal related to that,
speak up
now. In the absence of consensus the status quo will be maintained. I
will
work with infra and try to make the process as smooth as possible
for the
community regardless of which way we decide to go.
Cheers,
Hadrian
