activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Component/Plugin repository
Date Fri, 31 May 2019 19:12:02 GMT
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 2:42 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I probably would do one each, yes. Its the easiest separation, keeps
> things independent and focused from the start and can avoid various
> hassles later.
>
> I'd perhaps consider 'all <foo> stuff' aggregation (e.g foo =
> metrics), but really I dont personally see the benefits as outweighing
> the other things a lot of the time. I dont think anyone is charging us
> per repo.

No, but does it require a vote each time we spin a new component?


>
> With a shared repo I guess you would just tag everything, or else
> start down the route of complications that also make individual repos
> seem nice. Could use Subversion, subdir tags were easy there :)
>
> (Aside, there is one project, ActiveMQ. These would be components).
>
> On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 17:24, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with you, and that was my preference as well. I was trying to
> > understand if one git per component is what Robbie was suggesting.
> >
> > Although there's an issue though, when you have one super git for many
> > independent components, how would you tag releases?
> >
> > each fodler would be in fact an independent project, with no
> > correlation between the projects.
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:00 AM <michael.andre.pearce@me.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think one git repo per thing maybecome a bit too scattery. Id go for one
repo with multiple modules.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Get Outlook for Android
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:42 PM +0100, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:25 PM Robbie Gemmell
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would put them outwith the broker repository. Not really because of
> > > > bloat, which was only a very small part of why I didnt think the
> > > > proposed Kafka Bridge should live inside the broker repo+package for
> > > > example, but thats certainly also something to keep in mind given the
> > > > build is pretty large/slow already.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldnt say a single plugin repository is necessarily a great idea,
> > > > it can tend to become a bit of a dumping ground for idea-of-the-week,
> > > > but the main thing for me would be that components should be
> > > > independently released if there were to be a bunch of optional
> > > > components with mostly unrelated functionality in the same place (e.g,
> > > > the ideas mentioned in this thread already seem mostly independent).
> > >
> > > So, what do you suggest? one gitRepo per plugin?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic



-- 
Clebert Suconic

Mime
View raw message