Re: [xwiki-devs] [Contrib] Tour Application dependency in XWiki

So the main concerns are: A. moving (changing history, ids, versioning scheme, version compatibility, etc.) B. commit rights & ownership C. support definition A. Maybe in the future we might want to create flavors that contain community applications, without the need to move them somewhere (like Mocca Calendar for example). I don't like moving things around, losing history, breaking ids, versioning, etc. It is an interesting topic because in the past years, when we experimented something, we first committed code outside of platform. So the move topic will happen for other apps too. B. Regarding commit rights, they can be set per repository. So we could indeed handpick apps and allow only committers to support them. Now this indeed implies changing some of our definitions and providing such a list of applications. Regarding ownership, I think preserving the initial owner of the app, gives the appropriate credits to him. From a community perspective I think is better for an app to be attribute to the initial committer, rather than switching the ownership to XWiki's Development Team. C. Now the problem is the 'support', since as you said it's hard for as committers to offer support for apps that are not in platform. Changing the commit rights from contrib to committers could be a solution, if the owner agrees. Now IMO we can easily change the definition of what 'support' means, we only need motivation and to see additional benefits. So I would: - ask the owner if he wants his app to be bundled by default - not move the app, just use as a dependency - ask if we can change the initial rights to allow committers + owner(s), instead of contrib. A note that for some apps, multiple people could be better suited to 'support' the app, rather than the committers group - ask the owner if he can 'support' the app. Bundling an app implies that the committers will support it, but additional owners can and should support it. If the owners would like to support the app, but they are not committers, I would not want us to be 'forced' to give commit rights just because we will need to move the app inside platform. Or for the owner to 'renounce' his app. - as part of the support agreement, request the app to have functional tests and have a job on ci. So the other problems remaining are different version schemes, compatibility and the list of bundled contrib apps: - Compatibility will be better since you could install new versions of the app, on older versions of XE. Now the testing will be more problematic (in mixing different version). - Compatibility field on e.x.o needs to be updated on every XE release. This could mean increased work for the RM or the owner(s). - The list of bundled apps can be generated using the 'bundled' property we have on Repository app. Anyway :) this implies some changes. I would like us not to move the app, but not sure how this will fully impact our current rules. Thanks, Caty On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: