We'll first off I'd have created a Jira if Jira was setup. That is the
last piece of infra that we don't have yet.
Second wrt CRT/RTC, this is something we should probably discuss. It
feels to me like RTC could really hamper productivity. The mentors
probably have some strong opinions about this so I'd like to hear them.
On 3/22/13 4:08 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
A question first before I try to answer your question: Is Knox CTR or RTC?
CTR (commit then review) is committers are allowed to commit and other
committers are expected to review within a few days if they have concerns. RTC
(review then commit) is a committer needs a +1 from another committer before
committing (or in this case pushing) their code. CTR lends itself better to
projects that are more worried about speed and RTC works well in projects that
want to be biased towards stability at the cost of speed.
If Knox is CTR, then no problem. If it's RTC you technically should pull out the change
and wait for a +1. Given that Larry has effectively +1'd your change by saying
"leave it", even if it's RTC I'd probably leave it at this point.
To answer the other question, coding changes like this don't generally need an explicit
vote. When you post the patch you're giving people a chance to vote up or down on the
change on the JIRA. And for code changes it's lazy consensus (that is, if someone
doesn't vote then "silence implies consent").
Which leads me to another question. Is there a JIRA for this change? I am not
sure how the projects using git are integrating with JIRA. But having a JIRA
ticket with code for the change posted on it is invaluable for allowing others
to see what you're doing and give their feedback.
Alan.
On Mar 22, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Kevin Minder wrote:
Uh Oh.
I pushed by accident. I know what you are all saying. Sure it was an
accident... But it really was.
What should I do now? Try to figure how to revert it or only attempt that if
people object?
Kevin.
On 3/22/13 12:36 PM, Kevin Minder wrote:
Thanks. Just feeling this out and trying to figure out how to go fast without
being ignoring the community. I'll be interested in what the mentors have to
say on the topic.
On 3/22/13 12:25 PM, larry mccay wrote:
I say make it so.
Is this any different than a refactoring of the source, really?
I think that votes are probably required for things that affect the
community like a release which goes to the outside world.
A change that fundamentally changes the architecture in such a way
that existing extensions from outside the project will be affected
would be another thing that we would need a vote for.
A change in the charter and vision of the project would probably warrant a vote.
IMHO - this is more of an internal change that doesn't affect the
community or any existing extensions and shouldn't be slowed down by a
vote.
That said...
+1 to the proposed layout and I suggest that you just commit it once done.
If you are unsure about it a review request would suffice.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Kevin Minder
<[email protected]> wrote:
So how does this work?
I've spent the last 24 hours digging deep into Maven assemblies and finally
have a working standalone prototype that can be used to implement the second
model described below.
Both Larry and I prefer this model instead of the current model. This
preferred model has individual jars as opposed to creating large executable
jars that contain all dependencies.
So my question is how long should I wait to implement?
I don't really expect much of an opinion from anyone other that Larry at
this point BTW.
Perhaps I'll do the work and submit a patch to the list for review and if
nobody has input by say Monday morning apply the patch?
On 3/21/13 3:26 PM, larry mccay wrote:
The other option I can see is something like this where bin/ and lib/
would
change
bin/
gateway.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and
class
path referring to JARs in lib/
ldap.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
shell.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
lib/
gateway-server-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-test-ldap-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-shell-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
commons-io-2.4.jar
groovy-1.5.6.jar
jetty-6.1.26.jar
shiro-core-1.2.1.jar
... many more ...
I believe that this is my preference.
We may also want to add a gateway-common module that can be pulled out
as a separate jar so that shell doesn't need to depend on all of
server in order for them to share internal dependencies.
Anyway - this approach gets my +1.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Kevin Minder
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I want to raise an issue I been thinking about regarding the layout of
the
install. In particular the layout of the JARs. Currently the build is
using the Maven Shade plugin to create a single executable JARs for
things
like the server (bin/server-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar), client shell
(bin/shell-0.2.0-SHAPSHOT.jar) and test LDAP server
(bin/ldap-0.2.0.SNAPSHOT.jar)
On one had I like this because it is neat and tidy.
On the other hand wearing my potential RM has it raises some concerns.
1) It complicates the LICENSE and NOTICE file generation since it is
difficult to see what the dependencies are other than from reports.
2) The server and the shell likely share some dependencies. Creating self
contained JARs for each causes duplication and disk bloat.
3) Does this cause or solve a patch issue? Is it easier for customer to
be
given a new server-0.2.1-SNAPSHOT.jar to use instead of potentially a set
of
patched JARs?
4) The Apache build env seems to be running Maven 2 and the shade plugin
we
are using required Maven 3.
So this is what the "install" looks like now
bin/
gateway-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
ldap-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
shell-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
lib/ - Empty but reserved for future use
ext/ - Empty but to be used by customers for custom extension
samples/ - Distributed sample files
templates/ - Distributed configuration templates
deployments/ - Location for customer topology deployments
The other option I can see is something like this where bin/ and lib/
would
change
bin/
gateway.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and
class
path referring to JARs in lib/
ldap.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
shell.jar - Empty executable jar with manifest main class and class
path
referring to JARs in lib/
lib/
gateway-server-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-test-ldap-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
gateway-shell-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
commons-io-2.4.jar
groovy-1.5.6.jar
jetty-6.1.26.jar
shiro-core-1.2.1.jar
... many more ...
Kevin.
