Hi devs,
Since the first 2 takes did not pas, I’m making a new proposal taking into account the
latest comments and making the minimal changes from the current situation to get a
consensus.
Issues to solve
===============
* The scope of the code maintained by the XWiki Dev Team (== the xwiki github
organization) is increasing but the team stays relatively small
* The more stuff we move into the repos of the xwiki github organization, the less easy it
is for non-“XWiki Dev Team” committers to participate and we want more contributions
Proposed solution
=================
Executive summary:
* Reduce the scope of all the code located in the xwiki github organization by only
keeping “core” modules
* A “core" module is defined by being a generic transversal module (i.e. that can be
used in lots of XWiki flavors, if not all). This is opposed to “vertical” modules which
are modules specific of a usage of XWiki.
** Examples of “core" modules: logging module, configuration module, distribution
wizard, annotations, active installs, one base flavor (the “XWiki” flavor), etc
** Example of “vertical” modules: meeting manager application, blog application, FAQ
application, flavors (except the base flavor), etc
Some consequences:
* We need a new location for several modules that would go out of the xwiki github
organization repos
* It would be good that extensions that were developed inside the xwiki github
organization continue to follow the dev practices of
http://dev.xwiki.org
Details:
* We keep the current github organization names for now, i.e. “xwiki” and
“xwiki-contrib”.
* Each extension in xwiki-contrib continues to be an island with a leader (defined in
jira) and continues to be able to decide what dev practices it should follow. The leader
continues to be the one to contact when needing to perform a release. When the leader goes
MIA the next person interested in working on the extension can become its new leader.
* Since extensions moved from the xwiki github organization should continue to follow all
the practices from
http://dev.xwiki.org we need a way to indicate this so that code
committed against those and PR can be reviewed in light of these practices. Thus we should
encourage extensions to have a README file in each repo in xwiki-contrib that defines what
practices the extension is following. We’ll also update
contrib.xwiki.org with
explanations about this (both for extension creators and for contributors to them).
* Note that on
contrib.xwiki.org we will propose a generic template for README files that
should exist for all repos in xwiki-contrib. This template will include (but not be
limited to): Dev practices to follow, Link to e.x.o, Status of the extension (useful to
indicate non-working/abandoned extensions for example), link to its jira.
* When moving an extension from the xwiki github org to xwiki-contrib, depending on the
moved extension, the extension can keep its id (this allows the EM upgrade job to propose
upgrading it). Whenever possible the extension id should be updated to follow the rules of
contrib.xwiki.org (group id of org.xwiki.contrib, artifact id matching the rules). In
addition, since we don’t want to cause API breakages, the java packages can be kept as
org.xwiki.* till the next large refactoring of the extension, at which time it should move
to org.xwiki.contrib.*. Similarly the version of the moved extension should be kept and
not be reset to 1.0-SNAPSHOT. We can probably develop some EM tooling in the future to
handle relocation of extension id transparently.
Please cast your vote.
Here’s my +1
Thanks
-Vincent
PS: The previous 2 takes were proposal but I’m making it a VOTE now because I believe the
“XWiki Core” strategy is important enough so that we need to be sure that committers agree
(based on our voting rules).
On 2 Aug 2015 at 19:43:18, vincent(a)massol.net
(vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net)) wrote:
Hi,
I’d like to progress with this idea so let me summarize this thread’s discussion so far:
* +1 from Thomas, Guillaume, Caty and Marius
* No answer from Edy on whether he’s ok with the proposal or not. Edy? :)
* Denis seems negative about it but I agree with Thomas’s reply in that the points raised
by Denis do not concern this discussion. Denis commented about publishing and installing
Extensions, whereas this proposal was only about a location for storing some extensions.
Extensions can be developed anywhere and don’t have to go into this new proposed location.
Denis, could you please review this new proposal with this in mind?
* There were discussions about the name and devs express doubts about using
xwiki-contrib-sandbox.
I’d like to progress so here’s my second proposal. It differs from the first proposal on
the following points:
* All our code is contributed so I don’t think we need to emphasize this point and I
don’t think we need to have “contrib” in the name of the github repos. This will lead to
shorter names which is better.
* I propose to have 3 github org:
** xwiki-core (currently “xwiki” but we should probably rename it - Github will create
redirects and the only downside is that we need to check it out for making repo changes)
** xwiki-extensions (new). For maintained and good quality level extensions, following
the charter defined in the first proposal (we’ll tune it). Committers are added extension
by extension and will be voted on the devs list for now, by the xwiki core devs (we’ll
tune that later on)
** xwiki-incubator (currently “xwiki-contrib” but we should rename it). Extensions in
xwiki-extensions that are no longer working with the latest LTS and that nobody is fixing
will move back to xwiki-incubator too.
* I propose to change the goal of the
contrib.xwiki.org wiki and to expand its goal.
Right now it’s focused about the xwiki-contrib organization on GitHub. I propose to make
it the wiki that explains how to make contributions to the XWiki ecosystem in general. We
would move
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/Contributing + add pages for
explaining how to contribute to xwiki-core, xwiki-extensions and xwiki-incubator.
* ATM we should continue to use the “org.xwiki.contrib" groupid for code in the
xwiki-incubator and xwiki-extensions organizations. Ideally we should use
org.xwiki.extension but it’s already used by the Extension module in xwiki-core. An option
would have been to use org.xwiki.core for the core but that would break too much code so
the only option is to keep having a special prefix for non-core code. Other ideas:
“org.xwiki.module”, “org.xwiki.ext”, “org.xwiki.external”, “org.xwiki.addon”. The simplest
is to keep “org.xwiki.contrib” I think, WDYT?
Once (and if) we agree on this, I’d like to quickly move some existing extensions from
the xwiki-core organization into xwiki-extensions, starting with the FAQ Application, in
order to start testing this new organization.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
On 3 Dec 2014 at 15:58:36, vincent(a)massol.net
(vincent@massol.net(mailto:vincent@massol.net)) wrote:
> Hi committers (and devs in general),
>
> I’m submitting to you this idea, to try to improve the xwiki open source project and
to give it a new dynamism. I believe the topics discussed below are made even more
important since we’re soon going to develop the notion of flavors in XWiki.
>
> Note that this proposal obsoletes the
http://markmail.org/message/4hglttljiio5v2km
proposal (i.e. the move of some extensions in the xwiki github organization), which itself
was obsoleting
http://markmail.org/message/ppw2slpgqou2ihai
>
> Issues to solve
> ===============
>
> * The scope of the code maintained by the XWiki Dev Team (== the xwiki github
organization) is increasing but the team stays relatively small
> * The more stuff we move into the repos of the xwiki github organization, the less
easy it is for non-“XWiki Dev Team” committers to participate and we want more
contributions
>
> Proposed solution
> =================
>
> Executive summary:
> * Reduce the scope of all the code located in the xwiki github organization by only
keeping “core” modules
> * A “core" module is defined by being a generic transversal module (i.e. that
can be used in lots of XWiki flavors, if not all). This is opposed to “vertical” modules
which are modules specific of a usage of XWiki.
> ** Examples of “core" modules: logging module, configuration module,
distribution wizard, statistics application, annotations, active installs, one base flavor
(the “XWiki” flavor), etc
> ** Example of “vertical” modules: meeting manager application, blog application, FAQ
application, flavors (except the base flavor), etc
>
> Some consequences:
> * We need a new location for several modules that would go out of the xwiki github
organization repos
> * It would be good to separate sandbox extensions from 1st class extensions that are
maintained and developed following best practices. We need some way to maintain the
quality of important extensions
>
> Detailed Implementation:
> * The “xwiki” github organization’s description becomes “XWiki Core” (it’s too
complex to rename the org to “xwiki-core” IMO)
> * “XWiki Dev Team” becomes the “XWiki Core Team” (and committers in there are called
“XWiki Core Committers”).
> * “xwiki-contrib” is split into 2 github organizations (technically we rename it to
“xwiki-contrib-sandbox”):
> ** “xwiki-contrib-sandbox” (or “xwiki-incubator”), where newly proposed extensions
or abandoned extensions are located
> ** “xwiki-contrib-extensions”, where maintained extensions are located.
> * These 2 organizations are commonly referred to as “XWiki Contrib"
> * Same as now, anyone requesting a repo in xwiki-contrib-sandbox would be granted
one and he/she’d be given write access to all repos in the xwiki-contrib-sandbox
organization.
> * We define some rules for graduating from xwiki-contrib-sandbox to
xwiki-contrib-extensions. For example:
> ** The extension should have been in xwiki-contrib-sandbox at least 6 months (this
gives time to see if the extension is maintained during that time and will survive the
test of time - most extensions will die in the first months)
> ** The extension should have had more than 2 releases and be published on
extensions.xwiki.org(http://extensions.xwiki.org) with documentation
> ** The extension should work with the latest LTS version of XWiki + the latest
stable version of XWiki (right now that would be 5.4.5 + 6.3). Note that if the extension
has to use new API it’s ok that it doesn’t work on the latest LTS.
> ** Generally follow the practices defined at
http://dev.xwiki.org
> * Each extension in xwiki-extensions has a leader/maintainer. He/she’s the one
proposing to move the extension from xwiki-sandbox to xwiki-extensions. He/she’s
responsible for ensuring that the extension gets regular releases and is maintained in
general. He/she defines initially the list of committers in his email proposal for moving
the extension.
> * We create a PMC (Project Management Committee) for XWiki Contrib, generally in
charge of both xwiki-contrib-sandbox and xwiki-contrib-extensions (voting new extensions
in xwiki-contrib-extensions, vote new PMC members, etc). To bootstrap it, I would send a
mail on devs@ asking who’s interested to be part of this committee. I expect some core
committers + some contrib committers to stand up.
> * Contrib extensions keep using the org.xwiki.contrib package name and groupid as
currently defined at
http://contrib.xwiki.org
>
> Note: The idea is that xwiki core is developed as a team maintaining all code in
there, xwiki contrib is developed extension by extension (each extension is an island).
This allows anyone to propose extensions in XWiki Contrib without the need for everyone to
support them.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent