Sounds reasonable to me. +1 for refactorings that improve the release flow and lower the maintenance burden.
2012/11/8 Fabian Christ <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I am investigating the current SNAPSHOT deps of the Stanbol components in > order to find out what can be released and in which order. > > In the enhancer we have the problematic situation that we have enhancement > engines that rely on other components, like the refactor engine that relies > on rules. > > This is problematic to cut an Enhancer release because we would need to > release, e.g. the rules component first. > > I would like to prevent such situations. IMO it would be a more natural fit > if engines, that rely on a certain component, are removed from the Enhancer > source tree and moved to the source tree of that particular component or > even to a third place. > > The Engines included in the enhancer/engines directory should only be > engines that do not have such dependencies. If this is the case, releasing > the enhancer with all independent engines raises no problems anymore. > > My proposal would be to create a new top level folder in the source tree > for engines that rely on the availability of other components. We could > call it "enhancer-thirdparty-engines". This could also be a place for > contributed engines that we do not want to be in the default > enhancer/engines structure. Such engines will be released independently and > are not part of an Enhancer release anymore. > > WDYT? > > -- > Fabian > http://twitter.com/fctwitt -- Olivier http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
