Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [opendaylight-dev] TWS on reorganizing the OpenFlow projects


Colin Dixon
 

And the need to have a new groupID means that downstream projects would be affected and have to change their dependency information in their pom files.

--Colin


On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Andrew Grimberg <agrimberg@...> wrote:
On 05/12/2016 06:43 AM, Colin Dixon wrote:
> So, did the TWS on this topic actually happen? I think it didn't, but it
> probably should in the near future. It sounds like there's two (or maybe
> three) orthogonal questions here:
>
> 1.) Should the tightly entwined OpenFlow projects be collocated under a
> single openflow project like we did with integration and releng? I'd say
> that's pretty clearly a yes, but we need to decide when and what impact
> it will have.
>
> Thanh and Andy, do you have any comments there? Also, I don't remember
> if we got to keep group-level isolation of artifact names after we do
> that, which would be important to understand.

I'll point out a couple of things with a restructure:

1) Build history might potentially be lost if the projects change their
final component name (which is unlikely). Just changing the logical
parentage shouldn't be an issue though we would have to lock access to
the repos during the transition.

2) We base the artifact namespacing upon the repo name. So, an example
of foo/bar/baz.git in Gerrit would have a namespace of
org.opendaylight.foo.bar.baz.* in Nexus.

3) With #2 in mind a reorg does mean that their merge jobs will fail
until they update their groupID to the newly designated groupID.

-Andy-

--
Andrew J Grimberg
Systems Administrator
Release Engineering Team Lead
The Linux Foundation


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Join z.archive.openflowjava-dev@lists.opendaylight.org to automatically receive all group messages.