11:03 a.m.
I have no problems with creating a new repository for this new functionality (I do see a
difference in purpose.) We must not break any existing plugins as a part of this process.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Bricon" <fbricon(a)redhat.com>
To: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "jdf-dev" <jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>, "Max Rydahl Andersen"
<max.andersen(a)redhat.com>, "Peter Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com>,
"Lincoln Baxter" <lbaxter(a)redhat.com>, "George Gastaldi"
<ggastald(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:06:37 AM
Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] Stacks 1.1 format proposal
Hi, I haven't read the whole proposition yet, but just so we're clear :
the current stacks 1.0 yaml file must stay available ad vitam aeternam
(almost) for existing clients.
We need to triple check moving the repo to a new organization will
properly redirect stacks queries. I know redirects generally work on
github now, but I don't know about potential caveats/limitations .
Le mardi 6 août 2013 19:16:10, Rafael Benevides a écrit :
Hi all,
I'm resurrecting this subject because Forge Team started to
brainstorm about the Stacks Add-on to Forge.
Max,
Do you have some thoughts/considerations on this:
- Change format (getting the opportunity of repo location change)
vs
- Still using the same format with workarounds
Thanks
Em 12/07/13 10:47, Rafael Benevides escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> As part of the "new organization" plan, it's a good time to update
> stacks format since it will be hosted on the new github organization.
> I've analyzed the changes need and attached a Stacks 1.1 proposal to
> see if everyone agrees on that or if should we keep using 1.0 format
>
> Changes from 1.0 to 1.1
>
> - Rename Licenses to Metadata
>
> Justification: I've been using Licenses today as an metadata
> section to avoid repeating metadatas like version,
> repositories, licenses, etc:
> https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml#L21-L34
>
> Workaround: Leave it as it is
>
> - add repositoryURL and extraRepositories to BomVersion.
>
> Justification: I've been using labels to to tag what
> repositories are Required:
> https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/blob/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml#L441
> - Some BOMs needs more than one repo as JPP ( JPP is built on
> top of EAP 6.0.1, but it is using RichFaces from WFK 2.1.0
> that is built on top of EAP 6.0.0)
>
> Workaround: Create an standard tag called *repositories* and
> add every non maven central repository required.
>
> So I'd like to here your thoughts about it and analyze possible
> impacts on this format change.
> OBS.: Remember that stacks 1.0 repo is planned to be moved to
> jboss-developer github organization. So it's a good change to update
> it. The 1.0 and 1.1 should coexist for a while and maybe
> stacks-client should have a "migration" feature to permit a smooth
> transition.
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
> Red Hat Brazil
> +55-61-9269-6576
>
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at redhat.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jdf-dev mailing list
> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev