[aerogear-dev] [feedhenry-dev] Separate APB org or just separate repo

[Summers Pittman]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mwessend at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Craig Brookes <cbrookes at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned by John having a consistent pattern for our services and
>> their various pieces (cli, apb, ui) etc needs to be figured out.
>>
>> The options:
>>
>> *Single Repo: * We kinda ruled this one out as it unlikely it would work
>> well against 3rd part integrations such as 3scale or keycloak.
>>
>>
>> *Repo for each piece: *Lots of overhead and different repos. Off the top
>> of my head it would be:
>> - repo for any cli piece
>> - repo for client sdks (iOS, android, cordova) etc ..
>> - repo for APB
>>
>
>
> I'd think this is cleanest - each artifact has it's own repository
>
> In addition, I think we could also move all the apbs to its own GH org.
> (aerogearplaybookbundles)
>
>
I think this makes the most sense as well.  Tooling likes single repos, and
a separate org let's us point user to the direct shiny things (in aerogear)
with out them getting overwhelmed by infrastructure (apb repo).





>
>
>>
>> *Single Repo for clients*
>> - 1 repo for cli, sdks and (maybe UI too?)
>> - 1 repo for APB (not a client but is a deployment mechanism).
>>
>>
>> Any other or better options people can think of?
>>
>> --
>> Craig Brookes
>> RHMAP
>> @maleck13 Github
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> feedhenry-dev mailing list
>> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Project lead AeroGear.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> feedhenry-dev mailing list
> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20171213/83a2ccec/attachment-0001.html