There is no reason for the 130 (at last count) packages that constitute juju-core (not counting the dozens of other packages we bring in as dependencies) to live in the same repository.
If licensing is the lever that we use to break up this monolithic repository, consider me +1 On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kapil Thangavelu <kapil.thangav...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> > wrote: >> >> While I am generally for using more permissive licenses, I'm not sure how >> useful that might be... most significant changes require modifications to >> both the client and the server, or at least to libraries used by both. > > > That sort of misses the point of building apps that use juju apis. Yes the > two packages need to be updated together for new changes same as today. > >> >> There's not that much code under cmd/juju compared to the whole rest of >> the repo. > > > Again its not about that code, its about building other applications and > facilitating integrations. > > > cheers, > Kapil >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Kapil Thangavelu >> <kapil.thangav...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> >>> one of the issues with having it in tree, means client usage falls under >>> the AGPL. We want to have the client used widely under a more permissive >>> license. I've already had contributions to other projects n'acked due to >>> license on our libraries. I'd like to see it moved to a separate repo so >>> that's possible. Thoughts? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Kapil >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Juju-dev mailing list >>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >>> > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
