Hurray! On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 10:55 Alex Heneveld <[email protected]> wrote:
> > All- For those who weren't clear, the board on Wednesday approved the > resolution for us to graduate so: > > Brooklyn is now a Top Level Project! > > I believe the immemorial custom is not to publicise this until the ASF > make a public announcement but since Hadrian's [2] is updated I hope > it's okay to broadcast to this list at least. > > Huge congratulations and thanks to everyone! > > Best > Alex > > > On 20/11/2015 02:05, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I created an INFRA issue [1] to track the graduation progress. I > > didn't see an official announcement yet (no idea why), however it > > looks like the foundation page has been updated [2] (congrats Richard!). > > > > I had a quick chat with infra@ today and they surprised me with their > > efficiency in updating the dns for the brooklyn site [3]. There will > > be a bunch of tasks and cleanup to do in the next days. > > > > One critical (sub)task is the git repo migration. If we were to split > > it into parts we'll need to give infra concrete and complete > > information on what should go where exactly. I need your help to fill > > in the details. I don't know if we have full consensus on this yet > > (although close). > > > > Cheers, > > Hadrian > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10808 > > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/ > > [3] https://brooklyn.apache.org/ > > > > > > On 11/18/2015 02:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > >> Should we add: > >> > * apache/brooklyn-distro1 > >> > >> What do we do with the docs? Should they stay in core or separate repo? > >> > >> I would also mention the following side effects of using multiple repos: > >> > >> 1. Releases. We will need to do releases in multiple repos, which will > >> require a vote on each individual release. There can be one single vote > >> thread for releases from all repos, but they should all be mentioned in > >> the vote. Probably a positive aspect is the fact that if something needs > >> to be redone it will likely be a smaller piece (just one repo) > >> > >> 2. Community. I think this will encourage contributors with specialized > >> sets of skills to focus on only one part of the project with a lower > >> risk (and associated mental barrier) of breaking things somewhere else. > >> > >> It's probably obvious, but something to consider nevertheless while > >> making a choice. > >> > >> Hadrian > >> > >> On 11/18/2015 12:55 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea 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 > >>>> > >
