1. Request URL:
   https://github.com/jboss-jdf/qstools/blob/master/config/qstools_config.yaml
2. Request Method:
   GET
3. Status Code:
   301 Moved Permanently

1. Response Header
   
1. Location:
   https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/config/qstools_config.yaml

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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev