19 Jan
2016
19 Jan
'16
5:17 p.m.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 12:01:01, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
(valicac@gmail.com(mailto:valicac@gmail.com)) wrote:
+1
My only comment is that we will start again to have discrepancies between
applications versions. That's going to be fun :)
Yes this is my worry too: the compatibilty matrix. The more contrib extensions we have,
the more complex testing and compatibility is. We need to work on improving user
contributions in this domain, directly from inside XE for example.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1
Thanks,
2016-01-19 7:06 GMT+01:00 Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com>gt;:
(i.e.
and
needing
contributors
Edy?
developed
the
the
for
is
of
to
the
least
6
documentation
I
maintaining
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs +1
Thanks,
Marius
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:05 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
organization,
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 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 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” > “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 > 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 > 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(a)massol.net
(mailto:
> vincent(a)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. :)
> > * 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 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 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 > 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 > 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 > 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(a)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 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > > > ** 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, 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 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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs