Mailing-List: contact dev-help@brooklyn.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@brooklyn.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <564CBBA1.4000101@gmail.com>
References: <564A7BA4.1010605@gmail.com>
	<CABQFKi2hY42HqW74fzYD__pTBXqPKGv_fEVmNNw1c=d5mRNjuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<564B6794.3070800@CloudsoftCorp.com>
	<564CBBA1.4000101@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:59:41 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CA+gmfahwpdOwBC4mt82o5+Np0mhFmHRMFszTby2wj6Hn-8q5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] Brooklyn graduation
From: Alex Heneveld <alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
To: dev@brooklyn.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114522faacd4770524d53e98

--001a114522faacd4770524d53e98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

For external relations purposes and as an umbrella should we also have
apache/brooklyn ?

I tend to think yes.

Best
Alex
On 18 Nov 2015 17:55, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hzbarcea@gmail.com> 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 <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>

--001a114522faacd4770524d53e98--