incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Huang <Alex.Hu...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master
Date Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:31:50 GMT
To do it is not that difficult.  One person can probably do it in a day.  But I think Chip
is saying that it was decided to keep the current directory structure because that question
was asked b4.

--Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohammad Nour El-Din [mailto:nour.mohammad@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 2:16 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master
> 
> Hi...
> 
>    For the points about following or not following the std Maven directory
> structure, I would suggest to do it after merging Javelin into master branch
> 
> Is there a separate branch for updating similar maven configurations ? or
> making our poms comply to the std Maven conventions ?
> 
> If not would it be worthy to create that branch gather interested people to
> work on it ?
> 
> Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:21 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:
> 
> > Edison,
> >
> > Cool.  Sorry for the mini-freak out.  I also posted my design thoughts to
> > the "new storage framework update" thread started a little bit back.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> > On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, there is no immediate change to s3-backed storage code on master
> > branch after javelin is merged into master. As I haven't glue the new
> > storage code on javelin branch with storage related api calls yet, so all
> > the existing storage code on master will/should work as it is.
> > > After the merge, we can decide when to use the new storage framework
> > code. I think all we agree on that the storage code needs to be refactored,
> > and if then we agree on how to do it, that will be the time we can switch
> > to new storage code.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:44 AM
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master
> > >>
> > >> Edison,
> > >>
> > >> So the current changes for S3-backed Secondary Storage will not be
> > impacted
> > >> by the Javelin's new storage architecture?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> -John
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:13 AM
> > >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master
> > >>>>
> > >>>> All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Will this merge be pre or post 4.1.0?  I am concerned regarding
the
> > >>>> S3-backed
> > >>>
> > >>> Plan before 4.1.0.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Secondary Storage feature.  Looking at this branch, the work done
to
> > >>>> support
> > >>>> S3 does not appear to compatible with the new storage architecture,
> > >>>> and I don't think there is enough time before 31 Jan 2013 to
> > >>>> retrofit.  I also have
> > >>>
> > >>> The existing storage code on master will not be changed, as the most
> > of our
> > >> changes on javelin branch are in the fresh new maven projects.
> > >>>
> > >>>> design concerns which I raise on a separate thread.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to know your comments on the design.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> -John
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Alex Huang <Alex.Huang@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> The problem that Howie is talking about is that none of
our
> > >>>>>> projects are structured in the "standard" maven layout.
 This isn't
> > >>>>>> just a test source issue.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm saying maven have a way to accommodate for that by specifying
> > >>>>> exactly
> > >>>> where the directory should be in the pom.xml.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Like I said though, I don't know why it doesn't follow standard
> > layout.
> > >>>> Maybe it was just easier to do the maven conversion this way? 
I
> > >>>> think all the directories in javelin has follow the current layout
in
> > >>>> 4.0 as well.  We can make all of the javelin directories follow
the
> > >>>> standard if there was no clear call on how to layout the structures
> > >> originally.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --Alex
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
> ----
> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
> - Albert Einstein

Mime
View raw message