After thinking about it for a bit, I do believe that a separate repo is the best way forward.
A considered alternative was to go full monorepo, where both the demonstrator and the website are pulled into the main repo. This option may become interesting after version 1.0.0, but would be IMO premature at the moment. I'd rather invest our limited resources into other initiatives (architecture discussion, documentation, releases, etc). As a bike-shading suggestion, wdyt about otava-playground as a name? Best, Alex On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 10:18 AM Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 8:13 PM Alexander Sorokoumov < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > One thing to consider is do we ever want to release/publish > otava-test-data > > to PyPi? If the answer is yes, then a separate repo is the best choice > IMO. > > If the answer is no (e.g., we don't release the website), then the > location > > matters less as per Dave's comment. > > > > My proposal is not to release it. Not that it couldn't be released, but > at > least for the foreseeable future, it's not worth the overhead involved. So > yes, this is why it aligns with otava-website repo and not otava. > > > If in the same repo, would they then be subject to consideration and > voting > > for release? And, how would that work, wrt release artifacts? > > > > Highlighting a potential painpoint. Doesn't matter much to me. > > > > Exactly. We would have to make sure the demonstrator doesn't get into the > release tarball, or if we do include it, we actually have to test it each > time. > > henrik > > -- > *nyrkio.com <http://nyrkio.com/>* ~ *Continuous Benchmarking as a Service* > > Henrik Ingo, CEO > [email protected] LinkedIn: > www.linkedin.com/in/heingo > +358 40 569 7354 Twitter: > twitter.com/h_ingo >
