8:58 a.m.
Hello,
I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects that
no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name for
this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on
important projects and at the same time preserve work that was already done
but away from the main organization.
From a quick look at the current organization here are two
repositories
that can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit
2.x
cartridge for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code
moved to another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to
move.
In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but for
now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other suggestions
for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
11:42 a.m.
I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects
that no
longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name for this
purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on important
projects and at the same time preserve work that was already done but away
from the main organization.
From a quick look at the current organization here are two repositories that
can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x cartridge
for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code moved to
another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to move.
In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but for
now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other suggestions
for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
This should be archived - it is obsolete - this was what the hawkular-agent grew out of,
but this wildfly-monitor is no longer needed.
https://github.com/hawkular/wildfly-monitor
1:17 p.m.
This seems like a good thing, a place for stuff to live, as an example
or reference, or possibly to be revived later. Pinger and avail_creator
may be good candidates as well.
On 4/29/2016 12:42 PM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
> I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host
projects that no
> longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name for this
> purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on important
> projects and at the same time preserve work that was already done but away
> from the main organization.
>
> From a quick look at the current organization here are two repositories that
> can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x cartridge
> for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code moved to
> another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to move.
>
> In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but for
> now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
>
> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other suggestions
> for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
This should be archived - it is obsolete - this was what the hawkular-agent grew out of,
but this wildfly-monitor is no longer needed.
https://github.com/hawkular/wildfly-monitor
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
2:50 a.m.
+1
I changed last week the description of 2 repositories to show OBSOLETE in
the list view for that reason (-nest and -bus)
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Jay Shaughnessy <jshaughn(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
This seems like a good thing, a place for stuff to live, as an example or
reference, or possibly to be revived later. Pinger and avail_creator may
be good candidates as well.
On 4/29/2016 12:42 PM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects that no
longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name for this
purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on important
projects and at the same time preserve work that was already done but away
from the main organization.
>From a quick look at the current organization here are two repositories that
can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x cartridge
for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code moved to
another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to move.
In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but for
now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other suggestions
for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
This should be archived - it is obsolete - this was what the hawkular-agent grew out of,
but this wildfly-monitor is no longer needed.
https://github.com/hawkular/wildfly-monitor
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing
listhawkular-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
10:14 a.m.
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Heute <theute(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I changed last week the description of 2 repositories to show
OBSOLETE in
> the list view for that reason (-nest and -bus)
'Obsolete' or even 'retired' might be too strong, hence
'archived'. I see
archived meaning that a repository no longer has active maintainers and it
will not be used by active Hawkular projects. Also, we should not exclude
the possibility of reviving some of the archived projects if needed again.
Obsolete is very strong and has some implications on the tech or code,
which might not be true for some repositories that no longer receive
contributions.
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Jay Shaughnessy
<jshaughn(a)redhat.com > wrote:
> >> This seems like a good
thing, a place for stuff to live, as an example or
>> reference, or possibly to be revived later. Pinger and avail_creator may
>> be good candidates as well.
> > >> On 4/29/2016 12:42 PM, John
Mazzitelli wrote:
> >> I would like to propose a new organization in Github
to host projects that no
>> longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name for
this
>> purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on important
>> projects and at the same time preserve work that was already done but away
>> from the main organization.
> >> >From a quick look at the current organization here
are two repositories that
>> can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x cartridge
>> for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code moved to
>> another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to move.
> >> In the long run we can develop some criteria for
archiving projects but for
>> now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
> >> Any repositories that should be archived right away?
Any other suggestions
>> for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
> >> This should be archived - it is obsolete - this was
what the hawkular-agent grew out of, but this wildfly-monitor is no longer needed.
>> https://github.com/hawkular/wildfly-monitor
>> _______________________________________________
>> hawkular-dev mailing
listhawkular-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > >>
_______________________________________________
>> hawkular-dev mailing list
>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > >
_______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
+1
So far the count in this thread is 4 in favour and 2 against.
1:33 p.m.
On Monday, May 02, 2016 10:14:17 AM Stefan Negrea wrote:
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Heute <theute(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> +1
So far the count in this thread is 4 in favour and 2 against.
Count me in against this proposal. OBSOLETE is very well visible both in the
list of projects of the Hawkular org as well as at the project page itself. I
see no reason for creating more confusion with moving projects around. Just
let them live at the bottom of the project list, clearly marked as obsolete.
What if we realize we need to "unarchive" some project? I don't see that
happening but that would create even more confusion.
I'd say KISS.
I changed last week the description of 2 repositories to show OBSOLETE in
> the list view for that reason (-nest and -bus)
'Obsolete' or even 'retired' might be too strong, hence
'archived'. I see
archived meaning that a repository no longer has active maintainers and it
will not be used by active Hawkular projects. Also, we should not exclude
the possibility of reviving some of the archived projects if needed again.
Obsolete is very strong and has some implications on the tech or code,
which might not be true for some repositories that no longer receive
contributions.
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Jay Shaughnessy <jshaughn(a)redhat.com>
>
> wrote:
>> This seems like a good thing, a place for stuff to live, as an example or
>> reference, or possibly to be revived later. Pinger and avail_creator may
>> be good candidates as well.
>>
>>
>> On 4/29/2016 12:42 PM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
>>
>> I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects
>> that no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good
name
>> for this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on
>> important projects and at the same time preserve work that was already
>> done but away from the main organization.
>>
>> >From a quick look at the current organization here are two repositories
>> >that>>
>> can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x
>> cartridge
>> for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code moved to
>> another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to move.
>>
>> In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but
>> for
>> now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
>>
>> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
>> suggestions
>> for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
>>
>> This should be archived - it is obsolete - this was what the
>> hawkular-agent grew out of, but this wildfly-monitor is no longer
>> needed. https://github.com/hawkular/wildfly-monitor
>> _______________________________________________
>> hawkular-dev mailing
>> listhawkular-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo
>> /hawkular-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hawkular-dev mailing list
>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
--
Lukas Krejci
5:04 a.m.
I +1 on the extra repo to remove the crap we all know we'll never want to look at
again.
wildfly-monitor is one such thing that I just want to delete - but if I can't just
outright delete it, then move it out of hawkular repo because its useless and will never
be used again.
----- Original Message -----
On Monday, May 02, 2016 10:14:17 AM Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Thank you,
> Stefan Negrea
>
> Software Engineer
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Heute <theute(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > +1
>
> So far the count in this thread is 4 in favour and 2 against.
>
Count me in against this proposal. OBSOLETE is very well visible both in the
list of projects of the Hawkular org as well as at the project page itself. I
see no reason for creating more confusion with moving projects around. Just
let them live at the bottom of the project list, clearly marked as obsolete.
What if we realize we need to "unarchive" some project? I don't see that
happening but that would create even more confusion.
I'd say KISS.
>
>
>
> I changed last week the description of 2 repositories to show OBSOLETE in
>
> > the list view for that reason (-nest and -bus)
>
> 'Obsolete' or even 'retired' might be too strong, hence
'archived'. I see
> archived meaning that a repository no longer has active maintainers and it
> will not be used by active Hawkular projects. Also, we should not exclude
> the possibility of reviving some of the archived projects if needed again.
> Obsolete is very strong and has some implications on the tech or code,
> which might not be true for some repositories that no longer receive
> contributions.
>
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Jay Shaughnessy <jshaughn(a)redhat.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> This seems like a good thing, a place for stuff to live, as an example
> >> or
> >> reference, or possibly to be revived later. Pinger and avail_creator
> >> may
> >> be good candidates as well.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/29/2016 12:42 PM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects
> >> that no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a
good name
> >> for this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on
> >> important projects and at the same time preserve work that was already
> >> done but away from the main organization.
> >>
> >> >From a quick look at the current organization here are two
repositories
> >> >that>>
> >> can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x
> >> cartridge
> >> for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code moved to
> >> another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to move.
> >>
> >> In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but
> >> for
> >> now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
> >>
> >> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
> >> suggestions
> >> for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
> >>
> >> This should be archived - it is obsolete - this was what the
> >> hawkular-agent grew out of, but this wildfly-monitor is no longer
> >> needed. https://github.com/hawkular/wildfly-monitor
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> hawkular-dev mailing
> >> listhawkular-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo
> >> /hawkular-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> hawkular-dev mailing list
> >> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
--
Lukas Krejci
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
2:58 a.m.
On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:58, Stefan Negrea wrote:
Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
suggestions
for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
Are there other organizations that do this?
Within the GitHub organization overview projects with
no activity automatically go to the back/bottom, as
those with activity bubble to the top.
To me adding "obsolete" to the short description sounds
enough.
10:47 a.m.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Heiko W.Rupp <hrupp(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:58, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
suggestions
> for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
Are there other organizations that do this?
Did not look but I would not be surprised if others do it. At the same
time, this proposal is very sensible given the current situation of the
Hawkular org. I would not have proposed this if it did not make sense, so
whether other orgs do the same is not very important.
Within the GitHub organization overview projects with
no activity automatically go to the back/bottom, as
those with activity bubble to the top.
To me adding "obsolete" to the short description sounds
enough.
Keeping 30 repositories in an org with fewer active contributors than
repositories makes thinks confusing (priorities, importance, relevance,
focus). Rather than taking the drastic step of purging repositories, this
is a good approach to still have code that was developed for reference
purposes or to restart development if needed.
As I said before, marking a repository as 'obsolete' is really strong
compared to moving it to a sister org. And letting repositories drop to the
bottom does not resolve potential confusion. I see a new org with clear
mission a much much better approach.
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
3:04 a.m.
Hi Stefan,
I vote against the idea of archiving through moving to another GitHub
organization. This will break srcdeps builds, because the git repository
URL is one of the things the srcdep mech assumes to be stable.
Thanks,
Peter
On 2016-04-29 15:58, Stefan Negrea wrote:
Hello,
I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects
that no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name
for this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on
important projects and at the same time preserve work that was already
done but away from the main organization.
From a quick look at the current organization here are two repositories
that can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x
cartridge for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code
moved to another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to
move.
In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but
for now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
suggestions for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
11 a.m.
Hello Peter,
The type of problem that you raised is the exact reason why I proposed
another org. Why would you have a source dep on something that is no longer
maintained? That is really bad for the active project because the raw
unmaintained repository is included in something active. What if there are
issues with building the unmaintained code? Who will fix it? Nobody should
touch the archived repository!
The proper course of action for the scenario you described is to have the
active project drop the dependency on the archived project. And the
archived project should have had a release prior to being archived. The
active project should have depended on the officially released version of
the archived project and drop it as soon as possible.
If we set aside srcdep scenario, do you have any other objections to a new
org for archived repositories?
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Stefan,
I vote against the idea of archiving through moving to another GitHub
organization. This will break srcdeps builds, because the git repository
URL is one of the things the srcdep mech assumes to be stable.
Thanks,
Peter
On 2016-04-29 15:58, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects
> that no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name
> for this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on
> important projects and at the same time preserve work that was already
> done but away from the main organization.
>
> From a quick look at the current organization here are two repositories
> that can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x
> cartridge for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code
> moved to another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to
> move.
>
> In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but
> for now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
>
> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
> suggestions for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Stefan Negrea
>
> Software Engineer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
6:33 a.m.
Hi Stefan, inline...
On 2016-05-02 18:00, Stefan Negrea wrote:
Hello Peter,
The type of problem that you raised is the exact reason why I proposed
another org. Why would you have a source dep on something that is no
longer maintained?
srcdeps on those now abandoned repos are there in the histories of our
components. It is the sustaining engineer speaking out of me, that it
should be possible to re-build any old commit of any git repo. It may
turn out to be necessary to build old commits in the future for whatever
reason (e.g. when using git bisect to find the commit that introduced
some bug). By changing the git repo URL, we break the builds of those
old commits. It is like removing artifacts from Maven Central.
Abandoned repos should be marked as such and that's all we should do.
Thanks,
-- P
That is really bad for the active project because the
raw unmaintained repository is included in something active. What if
there are issues with building the unmaintained code? Who will fix it?
Nobody should touch the archived repository!
The proper course of action for the scenario you described is to have
the active project drop the dependency on the archived project. And the
archived project should have had a release prior to being archived. The
active project should have depended on the officially released version
of the archived project and drop it as soon as possible.
If we set aside srcdep scenario, do you have any other objections to a
new org for archived repositories?
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Peter Palaga <ppalaga(a)redhat.com
<mailto:ppalaga@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi Stefan,
I vote against the idea of archiving through moving to another GitHub
organization. This will break srcdeps builds, because the git repository
URL is one of the things the srcdep mech assumes to be stable.
Thanks,
Peter
On 2016-04-29 15:58, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects
> that no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a
good name
> for this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org
focused on
> important projects and at the same time preserve work that was
already
> done but away from the main organization.
>
> From a quick look at the current organization here are two
repositories
> that can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift
(Openshit 2.x
> cartridge for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus
(code
> moved to another repo). Am I am sure we can find other
repositories to
> move.
>
> In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving
projects but
> for now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
>
> Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other
> suggestions for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Stefan Negrea
>
> Software Engineer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
3:52 a.m.
Hi,
I don't like the idea either. In a way, it's similar to "git push -f".
If
you move the repo, there is no way how anyone can find out the new location.
I vote for some big note in the readme, that it's abandoned (if it was
really abandoned) for reason X and it's better to use repo Y because of Z.
"What if we realize we need to "unarchive" some project? I don't see
that
happening but that would create even more confusion."
It's unlikely, but it actually happened with
https://github.com/hawkular/hawkular-ui-components
jk
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Stefan Negrea <snegrea(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hello,
I would like to propose a new organization in Github to host projects that
no longer receive development. "Hawkular-Archive" seems a good name for
this purpose. The goal is to keep the main Hawkular org focused on
important projects and at the same time preserve work that was already done
but away from the main organization.
From a quick look at the current organization here are two repositories
that can be moved right away: hawkular-metrics-openshift (Openshit 2.x
cartridge for Hawkular Metrics 0.2.7 or earlier) and hawkular-bus (code
moved to another repo). Am I am sure we can find other repositories to
move.
In the long run we can develop some criteria for archiving projects but
for now we can just do a one-time major cleanup.
Any repositories that should be archived right away? Any other suggestions
for a name? Any thoughts on the idea in general?
Thank you,
Stefan Negrea
Software Engineer
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
3124
days inactive
3130
days old
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Heiko W.Rupp -
Jay Shaughnessy -
Jiri Kremser -
John Mazzitelli -
Lukas Krejci -
Peter Palaga -
Stefan Negrea -
Thomas Heute