Hi, Here are my £0.02:
(1) +0.5. I'm agree with the point you made Alex. But as few modules within this project will be use elsewhere, I think a `brooklyn-commons` make more sense than `brooklyn-server` (2) +1 (2A) +1 (3) +1 (4) +1, I like git submodules (5) +1 Best. On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 12:51 Alex Heneveld <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All- > > So we are sitting at: > > * brooklyn - master project, pointers to others > * brooklyn-core - contains util, api, core, policy, and rest api > * brooklyn-ui - JS GUI > * brooklyn-library - tomcat, cassandra, etc > > But a few things have occured to me: > > (1) It will be confusing have `brooklyn-core` as a git project of which > the sub-dir `core` containing *maven* project `brooklyn-core` is just > ONE part. Maybe that piece should be called `brooklyn-server` ? > > (2) David and Geoff sent a proposal for a CLI *client* -- which would > allow us to tweak the getting started guide to be based on a CLI. This > CLI client could be a separate project, maybe `brooklyn-cli`. As it > sounds like it will be written in go (which makes easy-to-install > binaries) and the way go works life will definitely be easier if this is > a separate project. > > (2A) We have an existing `brooklyn-cli` used to launch the server from > the CLI. Rename this `brooklyn-server-cli`? > > (3) The docs/ subdir (the web-site) also is a logically separate piece; > personally I think it deserves its own git repo (`brooklyn-docs`) and > not in `brooklyn` > > (4) I know git submodules are far from perfect but maybe that's a good > thing to put into `brooklyn`, along with a README and a master pom which > can build all subprojects. (It's either submodules or scripts I think, > and decent info in the README, because otherwise it will be confusing > for people using the code.) > > One nice thing about the above is that the different languages and > contribution areas are different git projects; docs (markdown) in one, > UI (js/html) in another, library (java/yaml) another, server (java), and > cli (go). Assuming people agree with the above we'd have a different > proposal: > > * brooklyn > * brooklyn-server > * brooklyn-docs > * brooklyn-ui > * brooklyn-cli > * brooklyn-library > > > Although it is a fair few projects it feels natural. In for a penny, in > for a pound. > > > Finally in terms of process I'd like to suggest a (5) that we: > > * remove references to "incubator" > * cut a 0.9.0 release > * bump to 1.0.0-snapshot > * do a git copy with history to move things into new repo structure in > someone's personal space (but removing the awful big binaries from early > history), and possibly test the submodules workflow > * point infra at that repo and with the list of commands we ran to make > that > > > Where people have opinions can I suggest they reply with something like: > > (1) +1 > (2) +1 > (2A) +1 > (3) +1 > (4) +0 > (5) +1 > > (^^^ my votes) > > > Best > Alex > > > > On 18/11/2015 20:22, Richard Downer wrote: > > +1 - that sounds like a good idea. I'd suggest that - at least > > initially - the docs go into this repository. > > > > I'm still not convinced about the versioning - BUT that is a separate > > issue and won't block consensus for splitting the repositories. > > > > Hadrian, any thoughts on the feasibility of editing the history to > > remove the large binary objects? That seems to have to got lost in > > this thread. > > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > On 18 November 2015 at 19:02, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Do you see apache/brooklyn as being the distro project? If that's the > case > >> +1 from me. > >> > >> Hadrian > >> > >> > >> On 11/18/2015 01:59 PM, Alex Heneveld wrote: > >>> 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 > >>>>>>> > > -- Thomas Bouron • Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation • http://www.cloudsoftcorp.com/ Github: https://github.com/tbouron Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
