brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aled Sage <aled.s...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Update the package names to org.apache.brooklyn
Date Wed, 05 Aug 2015 11:30:07 GMT
+1 to merging these refactors as soon as asfbot confirms that the tests 
pass.

Aled


On 05/08/2015 02:02, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> Quick question, since these are changes that should not impact the 
> logic in any way, should we stick to the RTC process or would it be 
> preferred to commit a PR as soon as asfbot confirms that the tests pass?
>
> Hadrian
>
> On 08/04/2015 09:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> I created an issue [1] to track this effort. There are couple of PRs
>> already committed. I started on the ./api module, which seems to be the
>> one with the largest impact, the rest is more isolated.
>>
>> I will echo what Aled mentioned below, let's make sure the unit tests
>> pass, otherwise it'll be harder and will take longer to stabilize the
>> code again.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-162
>>
>>
>> On 08/04/2015 06:51 AM, Aled Sage wrote:
>>> Hi Hadrian,
>>>
>>> Sounds great. Let's do the refactoring asap, as you suggest.
>>>
>>> Agree with speed - ensuring that unit tests continually pass. We should
>>> *not* worry about docs being briefly out-of-date, or lack of a well
>>> documented upgrade process for backwards compatibility etc, or live
>>> tests, or manually QA'ing. We can address that in subsequent PRs before
>>> the next GA release.
>>>
>>> Aled
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/08/2015 03:55, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>> Now that the PR list is at an all time low, is it a good time to focus
>>>> next week on refactoring the whole code base? Should we choose to err
>>>> on the side of speed, or try to keep the code base stable at all times
>>>> although it may take longer?
>>>>
>>>> 3 day notice,
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>> On 07/24/2015 07:35 AM, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 -- let's work on the PR queue then do this.  it shouldn't be hard
>>>>> for
>>>>> folks to update PR's, even if it's a little bit boring.
>>>>>
>>>>> worth giving a 3 day heads up maybe?
>>>>>
>>>>> best
>>>>> alex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23/07/2015 02:16, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like it's a bit controversial if the package names 
>>>>>> update is
>>>>>> required or required for graduation. Rob Vesse says that in Jena

>>>>>> they
>>>>>> didn't do it for graduation, but they still did it when moved to
the
>>>>>> next major release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we are before the 1.0.0 release, unless we want to keep the
>>>>>> brooklyn.* packages for ever, I would suggest doing the package 
>>>>>> update
>>>>>> to org.apache.brooklyn.* sooner vs than later and plan to release
>>>>>> 0.8.0 shortly after.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like it's not easy to shorten the PR queue, so I would 
>>>>>> favour
>>>>>> a piecemeal approach, even if it would require redoing some of the
>>>>>> PRs. I suspect that with the right granularity, we could avoid
>>>>>> conflicts most of the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>


Mime
View raw message