directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot ...@marcelot.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Should we merge the DIRSHARED and DIRAPI spaces in JIRA into a single one?
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:24:33 GMT
On 5 août 2011, at 13:24, Alex Karasulu wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
> On 5 juil. 2011, at 22:53, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/5/11 11:47 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Just to be clear before I make the changes.
> >>>
> >>> Should I merge DIRSHARED into DIRAPI ? or DIRAPI into DIRSHARED?
> >>>
> >>> My choice would be the first option, as Shared is becoming the API.
> >>> What's yours?
> >>
> >> DIRAPI is way better, IMHO.
> >
> > I suggest the opposite because of the investment that has gone into
> > references for DIRSHARED. And at the end of the day it's still shared
> > stuff across both main projects, studio and the server. There are more
> > things that will go into this down the line besides LDAP. If we
> > release later we can release just parts of it instead of the whole
> > thing: meaning just the ldap api.
> >
> > We can still restructure but we're going to unsettle some references
> > we've put even into the code around these issues from the past. If
> > you're find with doing away with it then I can live with it but we
> > will lose more.
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> I understand your point but hopefully JIRA is pretty well built and manages to keep references
perfectly.
> 
> 
> No arguments there. Jira is just great.
>  
> Have a look a recent issue a user created in a wrong JIRA project, DIRSERVER-1630.
> It has been created in the DIRSERVER project but I moved it later to DIRAPI, since the
issue was related to the LDAP API instead.
> During the move of the issue JIRA gave a new ID to the issue in the DIRAPI project, DIRAPI-47.
> The old ID is still valid and the JIRA link https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-1630
now redirects to the new issue:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRAPI-47
> Lastly, in the Activity section of the issue ('All' sub-section selected), the move has
been registered with both origin and destination values (project, version).
> 
> So, as you see, I'm not really sure we're going to loose anything in the migration...
> 
> 
> Yeah I see this np. However my worry is in labeling this Directory TOP level project
as specific to the LDAP API since we're most likely going to have more protocol API's added
in the not so distant future. However if you guys are thinking of creating yet another project
that is a peer of DIRAPI say DIRKRBAPI, then this might be possible but then we need to be
a little more explicit. Perhaps then DIRLDAPAPI so we can have DIRKRBAPI etc. See where I
am going?

Yeah, but I can't foresee the future.

It depends on how we organize the project (in terms of version control, build and release).
We could have a single project (the current DIRAPI project for example) and multiple components
in it: ldap, kerberos.
Or we could have two different projects instead...

> However I may be over doing it with the categorization. I am just stating that we should
just do this once and not have to deal with such a shift again in the next year when this
new API emerges naturally out of our progress. Just trying to hint at some way to save us
all some more management overhead otherwise it's a no brainer.  
>  
> The only thing we'd probably want to do is to create new versions in the DIRAPI project
matching all versions of the DIRSHARED project.
> Maybe with a prefix, to avoid any misunderstanding.
> 0.9.19 in the DIRSHARED project would then become shared-0.9.19 in the DIRAPI project.
> 
> 
> This seems to be getting more involved in terms of managing things. Renaming things is
not really going to add all that much value, but it will mix up or organization changing links
that are embedded in certain places referencing issues.

It is not mandatory, just a thought I had to maintain some kind of basic history (for the
moved items).
Links to the moved issues will continue to work with both forms (old and new project ID),
as I explained above.

> There's probably a better way I just want a bit more thought on it because really there's
no serious urgency or am I missing something here?

There's no "real" urgency but it has to be done because it has already been voted and more
importantly because it is really confusing to have two JIRA projects associated with a single
project.
People are contributing bug and improvement reports in both projects and it's getting complicated
to merge things when doing a release because you have to look at two spaces.
It also involves managing versions for the two projects, etc. etc...

That was the whole point of the initial vote...

Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud

> -- 
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex
> 


Mime
View raw message