Hi Mark,
----- Original Message -----
> On 09/25/2014 08:14 PM, Nathan Scott and Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> [...]
>
> I've not had time to fully understand the issues being debated here,
> but thought I'd chime in nevertheless ...
Heh, thanks - yeah, its a more complex set of issues than I've had to
deal with for awhile that's for sure.
Above and beyond the issues you mention (I definitely agree re separate
trees and packages fwiw), there's little issues on the backs of the big
issues - things like the directions some parts of the code need to take,
current pcp/qa not being suited to java/javascript testing, a general
desire to get more folks more involved with testing + releasing, then
there's potential encumbrance issues pulling in code from new upstream
middleware and web trees, and more - the list goes on, it was a tough
nut to crack.
We need to move beyond the model of "there is one tree and it is pcp and
it is good enough for everyone" to something more like "pcp is a family
of projects/trees built around a robust & reliable core" - allowing alot
more flexibility in terms of maintenance, testing and deployment of the
many very-different components and personalities involved.
> AFAICT, the "1000's of lines
> of C++ and javascript and associated images" are in effect a 3rd party
> library package, and thus belong in a separate tree and should ship in
> a separate package.
*nod*. Take a gander through current dev, the pcp-web-manager tree, and
Paul Colbys C++/QPid trees on github. Soon there'll be more ... one big
happy family - well, that's the plan anyway.
> [...]
> my 2c :)
Thanks Mark!
--
Nathan
|