Re: [jdf-dev] Stacks 1.1 format proposal

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:57:46AM -0300, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Just a minor comment about the stacks repository move: > > Recently we moved QSTools config file ( old url: > https://raw.github.com/jboss-jdf/qstools/master/config/qstools_config.yaml > ) that uses the same download and cache engine copied from > stacks-client (copied from forge - Thanks Lincoln) and it worked > pretty well (even changing also the repo name besides the > organization change) so github will keep redirecting the old url or how ? For me "move" means the old goes away. /max > > Em 12/08/13 12:06, Fred Bricon escreveu: >> 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 >>> >> >> >