On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
On 5 août 2011, at 15:17, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
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.


Nor can I but when in doubt, without an immediate need or urgency it's best not to act. I'm really not seeing this as anything more than just renaming something to rename it. I think as a group we need to avoid such things as we stabilize both in terms of our products, their documentation and our habits. I advocated more gitter in the past to help us find the best resting points early when we were forming but now we need to be a bit more conservative with some gitter in the right place. This move just does not have value, and it churns things needlessly. Why do it?

As I already explained, the current situation isn't sane since we have two different Jira projects associated to a single "code project".
From a developer POV it forces us to maintain versions in both projects and makes it difficult to maintain a clear roadmap and/or release notes for each version.
From a users POV, it is confusing and users report issues in both projects.

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...


Yep agreed.

The whole change here is between API and SHARED. Not everything is API related either. It could just have been called COMMON.

I thought we had all agreed that the current 'shared' sub-project is actually what we call the API.

I don't agree with this, hence why I am responding to this thread.
 
If there are things in it that are not API related, then we need to create a separate 'api' trunk and move all API-related code to this new trunk, while leaving the common (shared) code in the 'shared' trunk.

In that case, maybe the merge of JIRA projects should not happen.

If we have and/or if we are going to have in a very near future (one year or less) some code (probably common to a number of projects) which is not released as part of the API, then we should probably keep DIRSHARED as is and dedicate DIRAPI to the specific API releases.


That's another option.
 
The only thing that bugs me currently is that we have two Jira projects for a single "code project" and we should remedy it.

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

We started a vote but we're still discussing this. I just want to get on base community wise on this and make all the necessary points. Really it's not going to kill us making this move but it's that we are continuously making these kinds of changes. Our users are going to get confused additively over time. 

That's exactly why I launched the discussion and I'm waiting that we all agree on the correct change before doing anything.
Consensus and community is the key...



Bravo ... thanks for that.

Regards,
Alex