It is difficult to groups components in this way because it is based on your personal experience (mine would be completely different, for example). The fact that they are not part of the future "OFBiz releases" doesn't mean that they will not be used, in fact they can be downloaded separately.
Jacopo On Jul 9, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > I have nothing against these ideas. It seems to me though that some > applications currently in specialpurpose are more used and/or have a larger > scope than some others. > > Roughly said I see 2 kinds of components there: > "1st class citizens" would be > assetmaint > ecommerce > example* > pos > maybe myportal? > projectmgr > scrum > and maybe webpos? > > "2nd class citizens" would be all the rest but workflow which should be moved > to Attic ASAP (I will do soon > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4900) > They are more like addons that actually less people use. > > I still wonder if moving "1st class citizens" out of the repo will be a good > thing for those component... I bet they will have less audience... > > So I'm inclined to move "1st class citizens" in applications with ecommerce, > and let the rest go to Extra or even Attic (one of ebay and ebaystore for > instance, with dependencies resolved 1st) > > Anyway these are long terms plans and I think things will change in the > meantime... > > Jacques > > From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> >> Yes, this could be the easiest way to implement it. >> And if and when we will release the "specialpurpose" applications we could >> simply create a tag (if we do not plan to backport fixes for >> "specialpurpose" releases) or we could create a release branch specific for >> "specialpurpose" (if we do not want to backport fixes for "specialpurpose" >> releases). >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> So, we would remove the specialpurpose folder from the release branch? That >>> sounds fine to me. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 7/9/2012 1:55 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> Adrian, >>>> >>>> all you proposed sounds good to me, I like it. >>>> What about the idea of not including specialpurpose in the releases? I >>>> think it is important because it simplifies the task of reviewing the code >>>> that we officially publish when we do a release; releasing separately will >>>> help to focus on a smaller amount of code every time we do a release. >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> >>>>> I like the general direction, but I think the steps are overly >>>>> complicated. I would prefer to keep the specialpurpose folder name, and >>>>> keep its components in the build scripts and test runs. This is important >>>>> because higher level component tests can reveal problems in the core >>>>> logic (those tests were invaluable during the Mini-language overhaul). >>>>> >>>>> So, let's move stuff into specialpurpose, then move bits of >>>>> specialpurpose out of the project. When the specialpurpose folder is >>>>> empty, we can remove it. >>>>> >>>>> The eCommerce component could be moved to the applications folder. >>>>> >>>>> I would be interested in spinning off the Asset Maintenance component to >>>>> a separate project. Maybe we could use that as a test run of the "extras" >>>>> concept. >>>>> >>>>> -Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/9/2012 11:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> A few months ago we discussed about moving out of OFBiz some components >>>>>> from framework and specialpurpose and introduce the concept of "OFBiz >>>>>> Extras" projects, managed out of the ASF infrastructure. >>>>>> I still think it is a good way to go, especially because it will help to >>>>>> grow an ecosystem of projects not necessarily licensed under the same >>>>>> license. >>>>>> However I understand that this will take time to adjust and a lot of >>>>>> work to setup communities etc... this is the main reason I have prepared >>>>>> this proposal for an intermediate step: instead of moving out the >>>>>> components we can move them to the "specialpurpose" folder, rename it >>>>>> into "extras" and exclude the folder from the ootb build/deployment and >>>>>> from releases. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some more details: >>>>>> * the extras folder will not be included in build scripts, test runs, >>>>>> deployments; in order to build/run/test an extras component, it will >>>>>> have to be dropped into the hot-deploy folder >>>>>> * extras components are not deployed on our demo instances, or included >>>>>> in automated builds; no dependency on them (links, documentation etc...) >>>>>> will exist in the OFBiz codebase >>>>>> * some of the components in the extras folder could be experimental; >>>>>> each component should contain a README file with all the information >>>>>> required to deploy it successfully >>>>>> * a separate LICENSE file will be maintained in the extras folder >>>>>> * extras folder will not be part of the future OFBiz releases; we will >>>>>> instead release all the extras components in one package as "Apache >>>>>> OFBiz Extras" let's say every year >>>>>> * we may consider to move back ecommerce from specialpurpose/extras to >>>>>> applications, at least the core ecommerce features >>>>>> >>>>>> Considering that the components are either experimental or very >>>>>> specific, it will be easier to get commit rights for one or more of the >>>>>> "extras" components; new committers will be formally "OFBiz committers" >>>>>> (i.e. in theory they will have right to change all code in svn, >>>>>> including ofbiz code) but they will be asked to limit their field of >>>>>> action to the components they have been voted for; it will be based on >>>>>> trust rather than commit rights; a formal vote will be still required to >>>>>> authorize the committer to other components; the fact that a committer >>>>>> will still have the ability to change all code could be an advantage if >>>>>> we allow them to commit code under the explicit permission of another >>>>>> senior committer on specific case; for example a senior committer could >>>>>> say "I have committed r123456 and this should be backported to 12.04 and >>>>>> 11.04 but I don't have time; is there a committer available to help to >>>>>> backport and test the feature?" >>>>>> This strategy, to have committers that are asked to not commit out of >>>>>> specific components, or areas (we could, for example, have a committer >>>>>> allowed to only work on ui labels), could even be considered for old >>>>>> committers (whose commit history shows lack of quality)... but this is >>>>>> probably topic for another day. >>>>>> >>>>>> In short, this approach should help in a few areas: smaller core code >>>>>> base, greater community of specialized committers, less load on existing >>>>>> committers. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>
