users@jms-spec.java.net

[jms-spec users] Re: [jsr368-experts] Re: svn -> git (GitHub)

From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:47:31 +0100

Hi,

Okay, I'm convinced ;) Let's drop the uber repo idea.

Coherent naming conventions would still be a good idea I guess. E.g.

https://github.com/[SPEC-NAME]-spec
/[SPEC-NAME]-proposals
/[SPEC-NAME]-examples
/[SPEC-NAME]-API
/[RI-NAME]

What about a separate repo for the spec document, or put it in
/[SPEC-NAME]-API?

Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms






On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My "50 cent" from running or helping a few rather succesful JSRs like 354
> or 363 on GitHub.
> The one orga per JSR strategy sounds better. GitHub has a very distinct
> and good memory. Every PR you merge makes the person who raised it a
> "contributor" to that codebase. Before JSR 364/EC even made sure, that type
> of member even exists (it should be when 364 goes final) Thus in a "Uber
> orga" for all of Java EE it would be much harder to follow who is in what
> EG and who isn't if there are PRs.
>
> Werner
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree. The limitation in GitHub that only allows for one github pages
>> site per org/account also favors separate orgs.
>>
>> Regarding migrate the spec from word to asciidoc, what if we set up the
>> structure at JavaLand next week and start to migrate section for section.
>> The we can encourage the community to help by converting a part and sending
>> PRs? Just a thought... there's a *lot* of pages...
>>
>> Ivar
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:51 PM David Blevins <dblevins_at_tomitribe.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello from an airport!
>>>
>>> Chiming in to show support for the proposal. In reference to one big org
>>> for all of EE, I'd be in favor of separate orgs to
>>>
>>> 1) give spec leads the most control. Aggregating control/authority to
>>> a center usually slows things down.
>>>
>>> 2) more closely matches current java.net org for easier migration
>>>
>>> That said there still could be a javaee repo with forks of the other
>>> repos. Though perhaps not worth the overhead.
>>>
>>> The other item that would be great to see is converting the word spec to
>>> asciidoc using the same setup as CDI
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 29, 2016, Ivar Grimstad <ivar.grimstad_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> What do you think of using this unfortunate "quiet period" to move from
>>>> Subversion to Git?
>>>>
>>>> The way the java.net svn repo is organized does not allow for easy
>>>> migration to Git, but here is a suggestion that should be feasible:
>>>>
>>>> - Migrate the jms2.1 folder to a new Git repository as the master
>>>> branch.
>>>> - Migrate the www folder to a new Git repository (separate from the
>>>> above)
>>>> - Keep the rest in the Subversion repo as is
>>>>
>>>> Why GitHub and not java.net?
>>>>
>>>> - GitHub offers better support for collaboration and pull requests
>>>> - I don't have access to create repositories on java.net
>>>> - The future of java.net is uncertain (rumor has it...)
>>>> - When and if we have a java.net Git repo, we can move everything
>>>> there, treat as master and use the GitHub repo as a mirror.
>>>>
>>>> Any objections? Or suggestions otherwise?
>>>> I will be happy to fix this and for the purpose I have created a GitHub
>>>> group/organization:
>>>> (we have done the same thing with JSR 371 and JSR 375)
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/jms-spec
>>>>
>>>> I will add all of you to this group if I can find your github user.
>>>> Please email me your username if you don't get an invitation.
>>>>
>>>> Ivar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>
>>
>