Agree with you Ed about having a vote in OpenFlow Java committer community - and in general the TSC role if we plan to archive. Had planned on that based on how we have decided to proceed (based on Tomas's study of impact). Unfortunately I have been offline for periods of time during the last week or two (on a vacation). Tomorrow (Wednesday) I will be meeting Jozef Bacigal (OpenFlow Java & Plugin committer) and Tomas Slusny (OpenFlow Plugin committer working on this) to understand the latest status on how this has evolved and based on that will figure out the best course of action (after discussing with the other OFP/OFJ committers).

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:

Abhijit,

        This strikes me as good news overall.  It might be a good idea to get a vote from the OpenflowJava Committers, particularly as they will need to vote to archive the openflowjava project, and it also makes everything very clear.  As to the TSCs role, it has one for archiving the openflowjava project, and it would have one if there was some dispute with the openflowjava committers (which does not appear to be the case).   All of that said, it is probably courteous to inform the TSC :)

        Thank you for guiding this process :)

Ed

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

Thanks Sam! We may have some questions as we go further into the process.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:00 PM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We have 2 projects for OpenFlow - OpenFlow Plugin (connection handling,
> state management, apps like the FRM, etc.) & OpenFlow Java Library (library
> for the low level wire protocol implementation). This increases the
> logistics related to the OpenFlow southbound development (done in two
> places) and project reporting overhead. The other southbounds like OVSDB,
> NetConf, etc. do not have two different projects - even if some of them may
> have a similar split internally (plugin & library).
>
> Also more importantly currently most community activity
> (meetings/discussions for the new features) happen in the OpenFlow Plugin
> community even though the implementation needs to be done in OF Plugin and
> OFJ Library. Also going forward OFJ may have only a single active committer
> (Jozef Bacigal).
>
> So some of us feel Nitrogen might be a good time to unify these two
> projects.
>
> The current thought:
>   Move all the code from OpenFlow Java Library to the OpenFlow Plugin.
>
> Advantages:
> 1) This may not need a lot of work.
> 2) All active OpenFlow Java committers are also committers on OpenFlow
> Plugin.
> 3) Since we are not creating a project & if we do not add any new committers
> - this may not even need a TSC approval (but we will work with the TSC when
> we have decided the exact action).
>
> Challenges / open questions:
> 1) How do we retain history for the OpenFlow Java code for code done before
> the code movement? The IT experts may have some ideas on this - Thanh, Anil
> B, Andrew? Also is there a way to subsume a project into another project or
> merge the repos?

We kept history when we split ovsdb/netvirt and then merged netvirt
and vpnservice. The flow Andy used copied all the files into NetVirt
and the history was kept intact. I think I came up with the commands
to use and Andy did the work - but I can't find those emails right
now.

You should also stop the jobs running for the old openflowjava repo
and migrate them to use openflowplugin repo.

>    One obvious solution, we can just keep the OpenFlow Java Library repo
> still active - even if OpenFlow Java Library does not participate in future
> simultaneous releases.
> 2) How do handle the documentation of the 2 projects? Just move the OpenFlow
> Java documentation inside the developer guide under OFP documentation?

Yes, this is what we did - just pulled in the relvant docs to netvirt.

> 3) How do we handle the inactive committers of OpenFlow Java Library? If we
> keep OpenFlow Java Library project active without participating in
> simultaneous release - we likely do not have to address this problem.
>
> If you have thoughts/suggestions/objections - please reply to this email.
>
> Thanks,
> Abhijit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openflowjava-dev mailing list
> openflowjava-dev@...light.org
> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowjava-dev
>

_______________________________________________
openflowplugin-dev mailing list
openflowplugin-dev@...aylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/openflowplugin-dev