I understand what you are saying, which is also my reason to not have a mono-repo. This way it's easier to manage and drop a repository when it's not needed. It doesn't cause clutter and lives in isolation.
I think we are on the same page in terms of the intention. On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Look at the branches that are cluttering up our main repository, many > symbolic of unfinished work. If we start one repo each for everything we > hope to finish, we'll make Solr annoying in a new way. > > There is no reason multiple artifacts can't be released independently from > the same repo. Why are you opposed to that idea, Anshum? > > On Tue, 12 Jan, 2021, 11:53 pm Anshum Gupta, <ans...@anshumgupta.net> > wrote: > >> Thank you everyone! >> >> I'll move forward with the cross-dc repo creation then as mentioned in >> the original email :) >> >> If we want to change the approach on the repo, we can always change that >> before we release anything in the future. >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:32 AM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I'm seeing valid reasons to prefer one solr sandbox repo, or prefer >>> multiple many repos for future plugins or integrations. In this specific >>> case, I think the relevant deciding points are 1) we don't have multiple >>> things yet, so deciding between a "mono-repo" and a "multi-repo" is not >>> very consequential 2) we can always rename things later 3) in the absence >>> of a strong reason otherwise i'll defer to the people doing the work (in >>> this case, Anshum). We considered sandbox and can always create one in the >>> future. If Anshum feels that solr-cross-dc is better for now than I'm fine >>> with that too. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:07 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> (palm-to-face) -- LOL okay sorry. I'm getting my threads crossed. >>>> >>>> A repo which holds multiple independent modules that can work with Solr >>>> need not release them all at once. >>>> >>>> ~ David Smiley >>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 4:48 PM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> David, this is about the Cross DC work that was supposed to be done :-) >>>>> >>>>> The independent release cadence is primarily the reason why a new repo >>>>> makes sense to me in this case. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 1:24 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> While I like the idea of a single (Apache!) repo for multiple >>>>>> packages/plugins, that does not apply to the Solr Operator, which isn't >>>>>> even in Java. It's too unique. So I agree with Anshum & others about >>>>>> creating an Apache repo for the Solr Operator. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the ship has sailed on the Solr Operator being an Apache >>>>>> project instead of some committer's pet project. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~ David Smiley >>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:47 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not necessarily. Most people contribute to Apache Lucene/Solr using >>>>>>> external repositories (forks) and raise pull requests against Apache >>>>>>> owned >>>>>>> repositories. There's no SGA needed on such occasions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see two paths forward from here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) Lets setup a single repository for all packages/plugins, say >>>>>>> lucene-solr-extras or lucene-solr-contribs or lucene-solr-sandbox etc., >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> develop it there. >>>>>>> b) All development for this effort happens in an external repository >>>>>>> (https://github.com/apple/solr-dc or >>>>>>> https://github.com/anshumg/solr-dc) and we raise a PR against >>>>>>> Apache owned repository (which can be created if needed once we are all >>>>>>> onboard). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What does everyone else think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:23 AM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An external repository probably ends up requiring a software grant? >>>>>>>> I know there is a material difference between code originating >>>>>>>> externally >>>>>>>> and code originating within the umbrella of the ASF in terms of IP, >>>>>>>> copyright, or other legal status. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:11 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If all we need now is a place to commit a PoC for now (and >>>>>>>>> something like sandbox repo or contribs won't suffice), why can't we >>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>> separate repository in GitHub outside Apache and merge into an Apache >>>>>>>>> repository only once the code takes reasonable shape? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan, 2021, 2:31 am Anshum Gupta, <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Mike. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I like the idea of the sandbox, but that might be >>>>>>>>>> restricting when we want to work on more than one repos. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if that would happen in the near future, but as we >>>>>>>>>> can always discard the repo and it doesn't really come at a cost, I >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> see a problem with having a repo created for this specific reason. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:45 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure where I sit on this, going to start typing things >>>>>>>>>>> and then hopefully I'll reach a conclusion by the end. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This definitely needs to be outside of the core solr repo so >>>>>>>>>>> that it can be versioned and released independently. And I disagree >>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> Ishan about the consequence of abandoning the repository - if we >>>>>>>>>>> realize >>>>>>>>>>> that it's a bad direction then we can pivot, but we shouldn't let a >>>>>>>>>>> fear of >>>>>>>>>>> the unknown stop us from doing it in the first place. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> However, if all we need right now is a place to commit code that >>>>>>>>>>> is WIP, then what we really want is a sandbox to play with, and not >>>>>>>>>>> necessarily a strongly directed repo. Lucene has a sandbox in the >>>>>>>>>>> main >>>>>>>>>>> code. We could similarly start this under Solr contrib and move it >>>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>>> before an actual release of 9x happens. Or maybe we start with a >>>>>>>>>>> [lucene-]solr-sandbox repository that we can throw all sorts of >>>>>>>>>>> stuff into >>>>>>>>>>> and then when components are mature enough they get to graduate >>>>>>>>>>> into their >>>>>>>>>>> own repo? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:32 PM Anshum Gupta < >>>>>>>>>>> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I understand your concern, but this is the placeholder for >>>>>>>>>>>> where the code would be, not what the code would look like. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Considering we agreed to do this in a repository outside of the >>>>>>>>>>>> core, I believe this is a good place to start. The idea that the >>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>> cadence for the cross-dc effort should be different from that of >>>>>>>>>>>> core is an >>>>>>>>>>>> argument in favor of this approach, but I'm happy to talk more >>>>>>>>>>>> about it. >>>>>>>>>>>> I just thought that based on the original email, folks were >>>>>>>>>>>> on-board with the idea of this being outside of core Solr >>>>>>>>>>>> artifact/release. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>>>>>>>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 on this. Without finalizing on the shape of how the >>>>>>>>>>>>> solution will look like, I don't think we should start a >>>>>>>>>>>>> repository: it >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be bad if we have to abandon the repository of our approach >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes >>>>>>>>>>>>> (say we want to keep it tightly integrated inside Solr). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:45 pm Anshum Gupta, < >>>>>>>>>>>>> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inline with my earlier email, I'll be requesting a new >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository to host the cross-dc work. Please let me know if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions or concerns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Repository name: *solr-crossdc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Generated name:* lucene-solr-crossdc.git (that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> auto-generated, so can't remove the TLP prefix) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Commit notification list:* commits-cros...@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I think it makes sense for these commit notifications to go to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new list, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm open to reusing the old one) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *GitHub notification list:* dev@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be submitting a request for the same later in the day >>>>>>>>>>>>>> today if there are no concerns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Anshum Gupta >> > -- Anshum Gupta
