Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

vmassol
Administrator
Hi devs,

Part 1
=====

I was looking at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions and found the thread where it was voted in July 2014:
http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km 

Does anyone remember the thread were we decided to not do it?

I also found this VOTEd thread from 21st June 2016: http://markmail.org/message/rb5xuex3mpzg3lsm

This new thread is not contradictory with http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km so it doesn’t supersedes it. Thus there really must be some other thread where we decided to not implement http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions.

Part 2
=====

Now, about http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km we have almost implemented it. We’re just missing one point:


* The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the base
flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled third-party
extensions has some important bug fixes or new features that we want to offer
quickly without waiting for the next base flavor release).


And later on:


Technically this means putting the Default Flavor in a
separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise being in a separate repo). We
need to discuss how we do it:
- consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
- introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and

deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the flavor id
in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor selection screen at
startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging we need a hard-coded flavor anyway).
"

Right now we’ve put the “Standard Flavor” (that’s the new name) inside xwiki-platform but we discussed back then move it to a separate repo in the xwiki github organization and have only the base flavor in platform.

Should we do what we decided?

Thanks
-Vincent

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
This is a bad idea IMO. When we talked about that the releases were a
lot less frequent they are now.

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> Part 1
> =====
>
> I was looking at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions and found the thread where it was voted in July 2014:
> http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km
>
> Does anyone remember the thread were we decided to not do it?
>
> I also found this VOTEd thread from 21st June 2016: http://markmail.org/message/rb5xuex3mpzg3lsm
>
> This new thread is not contradictory with http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km so it doesn’t supersedes it. Thus there really must be some other thread where we decided to not implement http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions.
>
> Part 2
> =====
>
> Now, about http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km we have almost implemented it. We’re just missing one point:
>
> “
> * The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the base
> flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled third-party
> extensions has some important bug fixes or new features that we want to offer
> quickly without waiting for the next base flavor release).
> “
>
> And later on:
>
> “
> Technically this means putting the Default Flavor in a
> separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise being in a separate repo). We
> need to discuss how we do it:
> - consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
> - introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and
>
> deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the flavor id
> in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor selection screen at
> startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging we need a hard-coded flavor anyway).
> "
>
> Right now we’ve put the “Standard Flavor” (that’s the new name) inside xwiki-platform but we discussed back then move it to a separate repo in the xwiki github organization and have only the base flavor in platform.
>
> Should we do what we decided?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>



--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
I don't think it's justified now that for just 2 external applications we
have another repository. The release process will be harder and the
versioning confusing.
But we should provide a model for other community contributed Flavors on
how they should organize their Flavor repository.

Thanks,
Caty

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> This is a bad idea IMO. When we talked about that the releases were a
> lot less frequent they are now.
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > Part 1
> > =====
> >
> > I was looking at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/
> DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions and found the thread where it
> was voted in July 2014:
> > http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km
> >
> > Does anyone remember the thread were we decided to not do it?
> >
> > I also found this VOTEd thread from 21st June 2016:
> http://markmail.org/message/rb5xuex3mpzg3lsm
> >
> > This new thread is not contradictory with http://markmail.org/message/
> 4hglttljiio5v2km so it doesn’t supersedes it. Thus there really must be
> some other thread where we decided to not implement
> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#
> HTopLevelExtensions.
> >
> > Part 2
> > =====
> >
> > Now, about http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km we have almost
> implemented it. We’re just missing one point:
> >
> > “
> > * The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the
> base
> > flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled
> third-party
> > extensions has some important bug fixes or new features that we want to
> offer
> > quickly without waiting for the next base flavor release).
> > “
> >
> > And later on:
> >
> > “
> > Technically this means putting the Default Flavor in a
> > separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise being in a separate
> repo). We
> > need to discuss how we do it:
> > - consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
> > - introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and
> >
> > deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the
> flavor id
> > in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor selection screen
> at
> > startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging we need a hard-coded flavor
> anyway).
> > "
> >
> > Right now we’ve put the “Standard Flavor” (that’s the new name) inside
> xwiki-platform but we discussed back then move it to a separate repo in the
> xwiki github organization and have only the base flavor in platform.
> >
> > Should we do what we decided?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

vmassol
Administrator

> On 26 Jun 2017, at 16:14, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't think it's justified now that for just 2 external applications we
> have another repository.

I don’t think that a repo necessarily has to be large. For me it’s not about the size but about the scope.

The standard flavor has nothing to do in platform IMO. Platform should offer the platform flavor (ie the base flavor).

It’s funny since AFAIR you were the one arguing for this on IRC the other day :)

> The release process will be harder

Yes but not has hard as what we were doing already with enterprise. This part of the release script is mostly automated anyway.

> and the
> versioning confusing.

For this I’d suggest we start with the same versioning as we were doing with Enterprise.

Thanks
-Vincent

> But we should provide a model for other community contributed Flavors on
> how they should organize their Flavor repository.
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]
>> wrote:
>
>> This is a bad idea IMO. When we talked about that the releases were a
>> lot less frequent they are now.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> Part 1
>>> =====
>>>
>>> I was looking at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/
>> DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions and found the thread where it
>> was voted in July 2014:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km
>>>
>>> Does anyone remember the thread were we decided to not do it?
>>>
>>> I also found this VOTEd thread from 21st June 2016:
>> http://markmail.org/message/rb5xuex3mpzg3lsm
>>>
>>> This new thread is not contradictory with http://markmail.org/message/
>> 4hglttljiio5v2km so it doesn’t supersedes it. Thus there really must be
>> some other thread where we decided to not implement
>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#
>> HTopLevelExtensions.
>>>
>>> Part 2
>>> =====
>>>
>>> Now, about http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km we have almost
>> implemented it. We’re just missing one point:
>>>
>>> “
>>> * The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the
>> base
>>> flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled
>> third-party
>>> extensions has some important bug fixes or new features that we want to
>> offer
>>> quickly without waiting for the next base flavor release).
>>> “
>>>
>>> And later on:
>>>
>>> “
>>> Technically this means putting the Default Flavor in a
>>> separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise being in a separate
>> repo). We
>>> need to discuss how we do it:
>>> - consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
>>> - introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and
>>>
>>> deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the
>> flavor id
>>> in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor selection screen
>> at
>>> startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging we need a hard-coded flavor
>> anyway).
>>> "
>>>
>>> Right now we’ve put the “Standard Flavor” (that’s the new name) inside
>> xwiki-platform but we discussed back then move it to a separate repo in the
>> xwiki github organization and have only the base flavor in platform.
>>>
>>> Should we do what we decided?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

vmassol
Administrator
Just to be clear. I don’t mind too much either way but this is what we had voted/decided so if we don’t want to do it I’d like that we discuss the arguments in favor of not doing it. You mentioned harder release process but I’m not sure that’s enough vs the clarify brought by the pro arguments.

We also need to move enterprise.xwiki.org somewhere so we need to decide if it’s in a subwiki or not. Personally I find it nice for users to have the flavor as a top level entry point (as we were doing with enterprise). This separates more cleanly the platform from how it’s used.

Thanks
-Vincent

> On 26 Jun 2017, at 16:30, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 16:14, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it's justified now that for just 2 external applications we
>> have another repository.
>
> I don’t think that a repo necessarily has to be large. For me it’s not about the size but about the scope.
>
> The standard flavor has nothing to do in platform IMO. Platform should offer the platform flavor (ie the base flavor).
>
> It’s funny since AFAIR you were the one arguing for this on IRC the other day :)
>
>> The release process will be harder
>
> Yes but not has hard as what we were doing already with enterprise. This part of the release script is mostly automated anyway.
>
>> and the
>> versioning confusing.
>
> For this I’d suggest we start with the same versioning as we were doing with Enterprise.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> But we should provide a model for other community contributed Flavors on
>> how they should organize their Flavor repository.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a bad idea IMO. When we talked about that the releases were a
>>> lot less frequent they are now.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> Part 1
>>>> =====
>>>>
>>>> I was looking at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/
>>> DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions and found the thread where it
>>> was voted in July 2014:
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone remember the thread were we decided to not do it?
>>>>
>>>> I also found this VOTEd thread from 21st June 2016:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/rb5xuex3mpzg3lsm
>>>>
>>>> This new thread is not contradictory with http://markmail.org/message/
>>> 4hglttljiio5v2km so it doesn’t supersedes it. Thus there really must be
>>> some other thread where we decided to not implement
>>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#
>>> HTopLevelExtensions.
>>>>
>>>> Part 2
>>>> =====
>>>>
>>>> Now, about http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km we have almost
>>> implemented it. We’re just missing one point:
>>>>
>>>> “
>>>> * The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the
>>> base
>>>> flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled
>>> third-party
>>>> extensions has some important bug fixes or new features that we want to
>>> offer
>>>> quickly without waiting for the next base flavor release).
>>>> “
>>>>
>>>> And later on:
>>>>
>>>> “
>>>> Technically this means putting the Default Flavor in a
>>>> separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise being in a separate
>>> repo). We
>>>> need to discuss how we do it:
>>>> - consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
>>>> - introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and
>>>>
>>>> deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the
>>> flavor id
>>>> in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor selection screen
>>> at
>>>> startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging we need a hard-coded flavor
>>> anyway).
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> Right now we’ve put the “Standard Flavor” (that’s the new name) inside
>>> xwiki-platform but we discussed back then move it to a separate repo in the
>>> xwiki github organization and have only the base flavor in platform.
>>>>
>>>> Should we do what we decided?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
Actually I just remember we already had this discussion in
http://markmail.org/message/fd5ijxdquzdhtykw.
and everyone voted to keep it in xwiki-platform.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just to be clear. I don’t mind too much either way but this is what we had voted/decided so if we don’t want to do it I’d like that we discuss the arguments in favor of not doing it. You mentioned harder release process but I’m not sure that’s enough vs the clarify brought by the pro arguments.
>
> We also need to move enterprise.xwiki.org somewhere so we need to decide if it’s in a subwiki or not. Personally I find it nice for users to have the flavor as a top level entry point (as we were doing with enterprise). This separates more cleanly the platform from how it’s used.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 16:30, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Jun 2017, at 16:14, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think it's justified now that for just 2 external applications we
>>> have another repository.
>>
>> I don’t think that a repo necessarily has to be large. For me it’s not about the size but about the scope.
>>
>> The standard flavor has nothing to do in platform IMO. Platform should offer the platform flavor (ie the base flavor).
>>
>> It’s funny since AFAIR you were the one arguing for this on IRC the other day :)
>>
>>> The release process will be harder
>>
>> Yes but not has hard as what we were doing already with enterprise. This part of the release script is mostly automated anyway.
>>
>>> and the
>>> versioning confusing.
>>
>> For this I’d suggest we start with the same versioning as we were doing with Enterprise.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> But we should provide a model for other community contributed Flavors on
>>> how they should organize their Flavor repository.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Caty
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Thomas Mortagne <[hidden email]
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a bad idea IMO. When we talked about that the releases were a
>>>> lot less frequent they are now.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> Part 1
>>>>> =====
>>>>>
>>>>> I was looking at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/
>>>> DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions and found the thread where it
>>>> was voted in July 2014:
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone remember the thread were we decided to not do it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I also found this VOTEd thread from 21st June 2016:
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/rb5xuex3mpzg3lsm
>>>>>
>>>>> This new thread is not contradictory with http://markmail.org/message/
>>>> 4hglttljiio5v2km so it doesn’t supersedes it. Thus there really must be
>>>> some other thread where we decided to not implement
>>>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#
>>>> HTopLevelExtensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Part 2
>>>>> =====
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, about http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km we have almost
>>>> implemented it. We’re just missing one point:
>>>>>
>>>>> “
>>>>> * The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the
>>>> base
>>>>> flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled
>>>> third-party
>>>>> extensions has some important bug fixes or new features that we want to
>>>> offer
>>>>> quickly without waiting for the next base flavor release).
>>>>> “
>>>>>
>>>>> And later on:
>>>>>
>>>>> “
>>>>> Technically this means putting the Default Flavor in a
>>>>> separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise being in a separate
>>>> repo). We
>>>>> need to discuss how we do it:
>>>>> - consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
>>>>> - introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and
>>>>>
>>>>> deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the
>>>> flavor id
>>>>> in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor selection screen
>>>> at
>>>>> startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging we need a hard-coded flavor
>>>> anyway).
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now we’ve put the “Standard Flavor” (that’s the new name) inside
>>>> xwiki-platform but we discussed back then move it to a separate repo in the
>>>> xwiki github organization and have only the base flavor in platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we do what we decided?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>>>
>>
>



--
Thomas Mortagne
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Status on scope of XWiki GitHub organization and its implementation

vmassol
Administrator
In reply to this post by vmassol

> On 24 Jun 2017, at 14:46, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> Part 1
> =====
>
> I was looking at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions and found the thread where it was voted in July 2014:
> http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km 
>
> Does anyone remember the thread were we decided to not do it?

So does anyone remember IF we decided to not do http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km  ?

And if so, would be great to find the thread again.

Thanks
-Vincent

> I also found this VOTEd thread from 21st June 2016: http://markmail.org/message/rb5xuex3mpzg3lsm
>
> This new thread is not contradictory with http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km so it doesn’t supersedes it. Thus there really must be some other thread where we decided to not implement http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HTopLevelExtensions.
>
> Part 2
> =====
>
> Now, about http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km we have almost implemented it. We’re just missing one point:
>
> “
> * The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the base
> flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled third-party
> extensions has some important bug fixes or new features that we want to offer
> quickly without waiting for the next base flavor release).
> “
>
> And later on:
>
> “
> Technically this means putting the Default Flavor in a
> separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise being in a separate repo). We
> need to discuss how we do it:
> - consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
> - introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and
>
> deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the flavor id
> in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor selection screen at
> startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging we need a hard-coded flavor anyway).
> "
>
> Right now we’ve put the “Standard Flavor” (that’s the new name) inside xwiki-platform but we discussed back then move it to a separate repo in the xwiki github organization and have only the base flavor in platform.
>
> Should we do what we decided?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>

Loading...