You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> on 2012/03/02 10:21:07 UTC
Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
branches/
tags/
archive/ (NEW)
trunk/
trunk/extras (NEW)
The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
What do you think?
Jacopo
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
From: "Erwan de FERRIERES" <er...@nereide.fr>
> Le 02/03/2012 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>
>> branches/
>> tags/
>> archive/ (NEW)
>> trunk/
>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>
> if extras is just for putting code not intended to be part of a release, or code which need to make its proof, I'm more in favor
> of using the Apache extras repo. There will be this way more people able to commit.
But will OFBiz commons users able to find their way to this repo? I doubt, except maybe if we advertise about it and publish it in
wiki?
Jacques
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote:
> Le 02/03/2012 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>
>> branches/
>> tags/
>> archive/ (NEW)
>> trunk/
>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>
> if extras is just for putting code not intended to be part of a release, or code which need to make its proof, I'm more in favor of using the Apache extras repo. There will be this way more people able to commit.
>
This is an interesting option as well. Having an "OFbiz extras" folder would let the OFBiz project release it as a separate prouct from "OFbiz releases" but maybe this is also possible from Apache Extras... or maybe releasing would be less important than having a larger audience of committers.
Jacopo
> Regards,
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
> www.nereide.biz
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Erwan de FERRIERES <er...@nereide.fr>.
Le 02/03/2012 10:21, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>
> branches/
> tags/
> archive/ (NEW)
> trunk/
> trunk/extras (NEW)
if extras is just for putting code not intended to be part of a release,
or code which need to make its proof, I'm more in favor of using the
Apache extras repo. There will be this way more people able to commit.
Regards,
--
Erwan de FERRIERES
www.nereide.biz
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
+1
We need to clarify what to put in archive, for instance specialpurpose/workflow to add, etc.
Also what is the future of webslinger? (hého BrainFood :o)
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>
> branches/
> tags/
> archive/ (NEW)
> trunk/
> trunk/extras (NEW)
>
> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the
> specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's
> move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there
> is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>
> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to
> "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests
> (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases
> but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>
>
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Btw, on a different but related subject...
>
> Previous discussions about removing dormant components have resulted in a decision to just leave the dormant components in the project. If that discussion happens again, we need to be clear that the component removal is motivated by a planned framework refactor and we don't want to re-engineer dormant components to get them to work with the new framework.
Yes, and before we should actually work with the community to define a "general goal/strategy" like:
A) the cleanup of the framework is the main priority of the OFBiz community and all framework related commits should go in this direction (possibly in preparation for a more revolutionary step like framework 2.0 or Moqui or possibly simply to inject some new life to the existing framework)
and then also some more specific goals like:
B) ootb we will always try to maintain the framework extensible but ootb only one implementation for each tool will be maintained to keep it light and less time consuming to maintain; for example, the framework can be extended to support several scripting languages but only Groovy is supported/distributed ootb because it is the scripting language chosen by the community for the ofbiz applications
If/when the community will agree and express a vote it will be easier to proceed and understand if a proposed change is in the right direction or not; then of course we could also have specific votes (when needed) like "vote to remove component XYZ from the framework".
When this path will be clearly defined and accepted by the community then the chances that objections like the following ones (that in the past made this process impossible to achieve) will happen again are less likely:
* "hey I use it, please keep it"
* "hey, do not remove this because someone outside of here could be using that feature and would be upset the next time they will take an update"
* "I will commit this new stuff because one of my customers asked it"
Kind regards,
Jacopo
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 3/2/2012 10:23 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Yes... you are both convincing me that deleting would be better: in fact this would be easier if we want to remove a part of a component (it would be difficult to move the code to "archive").
>> And the initial cleanup and version of the Confluence page could be based on the content of this file:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/trunk/OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> Then also nstruction in main README file
>>>
>>> Both are ok with me, but maybe less work by getting rid of hashes indeed...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Adrian Crum"<ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>>>> We could have an "archived components" page on the wiki to describe all of that.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:33 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand the need for the archive folder. If we just remove unused code, then anyone wanting to resurrect it can just check out a previous revision that included it.
>>>>> This is definitely true but I was thinking that it may be easier to document the instructions about these old components (using README files in the "archive" subfolders); for *example* if we will move there "webslinger" we could add to the README files the details about how to define the OFBiz container for it (currently in the config files in the "base" folder). But actually the same can be retrieved from the commit logs if we will decide to simply delete from repository. I am very open to both the solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the idea of moving some of the specialpurpose components outside the main project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> branches/
>>>>>>> tags/
>>>>>>> archive/ (NEW)
>>>>>>> trunk/
>>>>>>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
Btw, on a different but related subject...
Previous discussions about removing dormant components have resulted in
a decision to just leave the dormant components in the project. If that
discussion happens again, we need to be clear that the component removal
is motivated by a planned framework refactor and we don't want to
re-engineer dormant components to get them to work with the new framework.
-Adrian
On 3/2/2012 10:23 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Yes... you are both convincing me that deleting would be better: in fact this would be easier if we want to remove a part of a component (it would be difficult to move the code to "archive").
> And the initial cleanup and version of the Confluence page could be based on the content of this file:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/trunk/OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Then also nstruction in main README file
>>
>> Both are ok with me, but maybe less work by getting rid of hashes indeed...
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Adrian Crum"<ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>>> We could have an "archived components" page on the wiki to describe all of that.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 3/2/2012 9:33 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the need for the archive folder. If we just remove unused code, then anyone wanting to resurrect it can just check out a previous revision that included it.
>>>> This is definitely true but I was thinking that it may be easier to document the instructions about these old components (using README files in the "archive" subfolders); for *example* if we will move there "webslinger" we could add to the README files the details about how to define the OFBiz container for it (currently in the config files in the "base" folder). But actually the same can be retrieved from the commit logs if we will decide to simply delete from repository. I am very open to both the solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of moving some of the specialpurpose components outside the main project.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> branches/
>>>>>> tags/
>>>>>> archive/ (NEW)
>>>>>> trunk/
>>>>>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Yes... you are both convincing me that deleting would be better: in fact this would be easier if we want to remove a part of a component (it would be difficult to move the code to "archive").
And the initial cleanup and version of the Confluence page could be based on the content of this file:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/trunk/OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES
Jacopo
On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Then also nstruction in main README file
>
> Both are ok with me, but maybe less work by getting rid of hashes indeed...
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>> We could have an "archived components" page on the wiki to describe all of that.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 3/2/2012 9:33 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't understand the need for the archive folder. If we just remove unused code, then anyone wanting to resurrect it can just check out a previous revision that included it.
>>> This is definitely true but I was thinking that it may be easier to document the instructions about these old components (using README files in the "archive" subfolders); for *example* if we will move there "webslinger" we could add to the README files the details about how to define the OFBiz container for it (currently in the config files in the "base" folder). But actually the same can be retrieved from the commit logs if we will decide to simply delete from repository. I am very open to both the solutions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>> I like the idea of moving some of the specialpurpose components outside the main project.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>>>>
>>>>> branches/
>>>>> tags/
>>>>> archive/ (NEW)
>>>>> trunk/
>>>>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>>>>>
>>>>> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>>>>>
>>>>> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacopo
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Then also nstruction in main README file
Both are ok with me, but maybe less work by getting rid of hashes indeed...
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
> We could have an "archived components" page on the wiki to describe all of that.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 3/2/2012 9:33 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand the need for the archive folder. If we just remove unused code, then anyone wanting to resurrect it can just
>>> check out a previous revision that included it.
>> This is definitely true but I was thinking that it may be easier to document the instructions about these old components (using
>> README files in the "archive" subfolders); for *example* if we will move there "webslinger" we could add to the README files the
>> details about how to define the OFBiz container for it (currently in the config files in the "base" folder). But actually the
>> same can be retrieved from the commit logs if we will decide to simply delete from repository. I am very open to both the
>> solutions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>> I like the idea of moving some of the specialpurpose components outside the main project.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>> On 3/2/2012 9:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>>>
>>>> branches/
>>>> tags/
>>>> archive/ (NEW)
>>>> trunk/
>>>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>>>>
>>>> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the
>>>> specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's
>>>> move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if
>>>> there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>>>>
>>>> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to
>>>> "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests
>>>> (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz"
>>>> releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
We could have an "archived components" page on the wiki to describe all
of that.
-Adrian
On 3/2/2012 9:33 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I don't understand the need for the archive folder. If we just remove unused code, then anyone wanting to resurrect it can just check out a previous revision that included it.
> This is definitely true but I was thinking that it may be easier to document the instructions about these old components (using README files in the "archive" subfolders); for *example* if we will move there "webslinger" we could add to the README files the details about how to define the OFBiz container for it (currently in the config files in the "base" folder). But actually the same can be retrieved from the commit logs if we will decide to simply delete from repository. I am very open to both the solutions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacopo
>
>> I like the idea of moving some of the specialpurpose components outside the main project.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> On 3/2/2012 9:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>>
>>> branches/
>>> tags/
>>> archive/ (NEW)
>>> trunk/
>>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>>>
>>> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>>>
>>> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I don't understand the need for the archive folder. If we just remove unused code, then anyone wanting to resurrect it can just check out a previous revision that included it.
This is definitely true but I was thinking that it may be easier to document the instructions about these old components (using README files in the "archive" subfolders); for *example* if we will move there "webslinger" we could add to the README files the details about how to define the OFBiz container for it (currently in the config files in the "base" folder). But actually the same can be retrieved from the commit logs if we will decide to simply delete from repository. I am very open to both the solutions.
Thanks,
Jacopo
>
> I like the idea of moving some of the specialpurpose components outside the main project.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 3/2/2012 9:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>>
>> branches/
>> tags/
>> archive/ (NEW)
>> trunk/
>> trunk/extras (NEW)
>>
>> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>>
>> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
Re: Proposal for some changes to the layout of the OFBiz svn repository
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
I don't understand the need for the archive folder. If we just remove
unused code, then anyone wanting to resurrect it can just check out a
previous revision that included it.
I like the idea of moving some of the specialpurpose components outside
the main project.
-Adrian
On 3/2/2012 9:21 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> In preparation for bigger changes :-) I would like to propose the addition of two new folders to the OFBiz svn repository:
>
> branches/
> tags/
> archive/ (NEW)
> trunk/
> trunk/extras (NEW)
>
> The "archive" folder will be used for keeping an archive of no more used components or pieces of code: for example the specialpurpose/shark and the framework/jetty components could be moved there (but of course we will vote for each component's move); the idea is that the code under the archive folder is not planned to be released (but of course plans could change if there is an interest in the community) but in the same time we prefer to keep the code available to be resurrected
>
> The "trunk/extras" folder is actually very similar to "specialpurpose" (I have also considered to propose to rename it to "extras"): it will contain optional components or tools (not necessarily OFBiz components) like the support for Selenium tests (and the tests themselves) etc... The idea is that the content of this folder will not be released in the "Apache OFBiz" releases but it will be instead released by the OFBiz community as a separate product like "Apache OFBiz Extras" or similar.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>