| Re: [cf-dev] Merging Californium repos |
|
Hi Matthias, I like the structure. I will now merge the unification branch and start to re-factor accordingly. Two things: 1)
certs will HAVE to go into demo-apps in order to not refer to resources outside of the maven modules’ scope. But that should be ok if
we do not need the certs anywhere else but the demo code. 2)
We can merge outstanding pull requests later. The scandium PRs may go into 1.1 which I do not want to start in the old repo anymore …
not sure what you want to do about the content negotiation PR but I think it can also be merged later. FWIW the PR is there since 2014 …. Regards, Kai From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kovatsch Matthias Hi, I pushed my proposal to a new branch:
https://github.com/eclipse/californium/tree/restructure I find it simpler and should still provide the separation of “working groups”. What do you think? Does it work for you? Did I miss something? The demo-apps assembly is currently broken, but maybe there is now actually a better mechanism. certs might go into demo-apps as well. I saw two ways to disable artifact staging: <!--
this property prevents the Nexus Staging Maven Plugin to deploy this module's artifacts to Maven Central' staging repo --> <skipNexusStagingDeployMojo>true</skipNexusStagingDeployMojo> and <!--
this property prevents the Nexus Staging Maven Plugin to deploy this module's artifacts to Maven Central' staging repo --> <skipStaging>true</skipStaging> Are both valid? @Simon: Sure, we should first merge the pull-requests and then quickly deprecate the old repos. Anyhow, go ahead with the unification. I just want to minimize the confusion points for the users. The unification will
confuse, so the restructuring should follow soon, so they do not get used to the potentially temporary structure… Ciao Matthias From:
cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY1) Ok, thanks for the sign of life, Matthias ;-) Keep in mind, though, that we can always do re-shuffling etc later on once we have everything in Californium top level
… we do not need to do everything in one single commit. Kai From:
cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kovatsch Matthias Hi I am currently at the W3C WoT / IRTF T2TRG joint meeting with an agenda from 7 to 11… Unification is good, but since we reshuffle anyway, I would like to clean up a bit more (e.g., cleaner separation of
the demos, less artificial sub –modules, etc.) I am preparing a proposal in another branch, which I try to finish until lunch in parallel to the sessions here. Ciao Matthias From:
cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY1) Committers, I haven’t heard from Matthias regarding his opinion about the merge yet. However, I would like to start work on 1.1
and [1] in particular and therefore would like to finish the merge ASAP. Not sure what keeps Matthias from responding but given that we have three +1 votes (Julien, Simon, Kai) for the merge as opposed to one outstanding vote (Matthias), I would now simply
finish the merge, i.e. merge the “unification” branch into Californium’s “master”. BE AWARE THAT THIS MEANS ANY FUTURE CHANGES TO CALIFORNIUM-CORE, ELEMENT-CONNECTOR AND SCANDIUM MUST ONLY BE MADE IN
THE TOP LEVEL CALIFORNIUM REPO!!! Matthias was open to the idea from the beginning and just had some concerns regarding the naming of the core module
which we can still fix later … I will open a bugzilla issue regarding possibilities to restrict write access to element-connector, scandium and core
for the time being. [1]
https://github.com/eclipse/californium/issues/1 Regards, Kai From:
cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Julien Vermillard Works here. Awesome! It'll make our life so less miserable :)
-- On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Simon Bernard <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: Totally agree with you.
Simon, -----Original Message----- Hi, Californium on branch "unification" [1]. On my desktop it builds fine from a fresh clone and I think I can also live with the (somewhat cluttered) commit history.
Is this acceptable to you guys?
-----Original Message-----
We now don't have this naming conflict anymore, so I would like to "core". "core"
in
"core"
_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
|