For external relations purposes and as an umbrella should we also have apache/brooklyn ?
I tend to think yes. Best Alex On 18 Nov 2015 17:55, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <[email protected]> wrote: > So I see a lot of consensus on Alex's proposal with the following > amendment (s/brooklyn/brooklyn-core/): > * apache/brooklyn-core > * apache/brooklyn-ui > * apache/brooklyn-library > > If we can get a consensus on this I don't think we need to go to a vote. I > will address the other comments as direct replies, because I don't see them > as contradictory to this proposal. > > WDYT? > Hadrian > > On 11/17/2015 12:44 PM, Alex Heneveld 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 >>>> >>> >>
