brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: [HEADS-UP] Brooklyn graduation
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2015 02:05:55 GMT

I created an INFRA issue [1] to track the graduation progress. I didn't 
see an official announcement yet (no idea why), however it looks like 
the foundation page has been updated [2] (congrats Richard!).

I had a quick chat with infra@ today and they surprised me with their 
efficiency in updating the dns for the brooklyn site [3]. There will be 
a bunch of tasks and cleanup to do in the next days.

One critical (sub)task is the git repo migration. If we were to split it 
into parts we'll need to give infra concrete and complete information on 
what should go where exactly. I need your help to fill in the details. I 
don't know if we have full consensus on this yet (although close).



On 11/18/2015 02:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> Should we add:
>  > * apache/brooklyn-distro1
> What do we do with the docs? Should they stay in core or separate repo?
> I would also mention the following side effects of using multiple repos:
> 1. Releases. We will need to do releases in multiple repos, which will
> require a vote on each individual release. There can be one single vote
> thread for releases from all repos, but they should all be mentioned in
> the vote. Probably a positive aspect is the fact that if something needs
> to be redone it will likely be a smaller piece (just one repo)
> 2. Community. I think this will encourage contributors with specialized
> sets of skills to focus on only one part of the project with a lower
> risk (and associated mental barrier) of breaking things somewhere else.
> It's probably obvious, but something to consider nevertheless while
> making a choice.
> Hadrian
> On 11/18/2015 12:55 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> So I see a lot of consensus on Alex's proposal with the following
>> amendment (s/brooklyn/brooklyn-core/):
>> * apache/brooklyn-core
>> * apache/brooklyn-ui
>> * apache/brooklyn-library
>> If we can get a consensus on this I don't think we need to go to a vote.
>> I will address the other comments as direct replies, because I don't see
>> them as contradictory to this proposal.
>> WDYT?
>> Hadrian
>> On 11/17/2015 12:44 PM, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>>> +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.
>>> WDYT?
>>> Best
>>> Alex
>>> 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