brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Heneveld <>
Subject Re: [HEADS-UP] Brooklyn graduation
Date Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:44:52 GMT

+1 to removing the large artifacts; it's just stupid having them there.

Personally I would like to see the apache/incubator-brooklyn carved up 
as follows:

* apache/brooklyn
* apache/brooklyn-ui
* apache/brooklyn-library

The third one contains all the concrete items, like jboss and tomcat and 
cassandra etc.  The UI is the jsgui.

The first one is the main one, with everything else, including CLI and 
REST API, vanilla software process, and jclouds locations and osgi.

The only other thing I'm wondering is whether brooklyn-api should be 
separate, and very rarely changing.  This would allow us potentially to 
run different versions of brooklyn-* in the same system, using the magic 
of OSGi.



On 17/11/2015 17:03, Richard Downer wrote:
> Hi Hadrian,
> I don't think there's any need to split the repository (although I've
> no strong opinions on this, if someone else has an idea).
> However there has been a long-standing issue with our repository's
> history - in the dim and distant past, binary artifacts of Tomcat etc.
> used for testing were committed to the repository. These are long
> gone, but they still exist in the git history, and everybody is forced
> to clone these large artifacts.
> Could we use the graduation migration as an opportunity to rewrite the
> git history to permanently remove these large artifacts? It'd result
> in a much quicker clone of the repo for new contributors to Brooklyn.
> Richard.
> On 17 November 2015 at 00:58, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>> Hello Brooklyners,
>> The Brooklyn graduation resolution is again on the board agenda. This time I
>> paid paranoid attention to details and I hope the stars to be better
>> aligned.
>> Assuming all goes well, there will be a few tasks to take care post
>> graduation, mostly related to dropping the "incubating" suffix. Part of that
>> process it is possible to split the git repository into multiple smaller
>> ones. It is possible to do it later, but doing it now would be easier and
>> more natural, I think.
>> Therefore, if anybody has any idea or proposal related to that, speak up
>> now. In the absence of consensus the status quo will be maintained. I will
>> work with infra and try to make the process as smooth as possible for the
>> community regardless of which way we decide to go.
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian

View raw message