[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawti...

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawti...

franz1981
GitHub user michaelandrepearce opened a pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385

    ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solution

    WIP - Just for review

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

    $ git pull https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq-artemis ARTEMIS-1270

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

    This closes #1385
   
----
commit 1fd6482d70512a5542f14146425b1de19291c357
Author: Michael Andre Pearce <[hidden email]>
Date:   2017-07-04T10:49:40Z

    ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solution
   
    Add Hawtio to web
    Add Custom ActiveMQ Hawtio Branding Plugin

commit afb2c89bff029be645218e9f098f2ac1d5d3b5c6
Author: Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
Date:   2017-07-05T15:34:18Z

    ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solution
    Add Artemis Plugin

----


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    @clebertsuconic see i make two commits, one for my work solely (aka setting up and also the activemq brand plugin) and then another for the artemis-plugin noting Andy T as author, to give correct authorship acknowledgement.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    re mail thread bits, addressed:
    point 1) - url path changed from /hawtio/ to /console/
    point 8) fuse properties renamed.



---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    addressed:
    3) simply removed the feature/tab (isn't required)
    4) dashboard is now just a jvm default (no camel)
    5) simply removed
    9) war is now slimmed down to: 14.7mb, almost same size as acitvemq 5's



---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user clebertsuconic commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    just one request here.. don't leave master on an intermediate state this week.. I want to release before end of this week / early next week as I sent the heads up earlier.
   
    We can merge this now if we're sure it's ready.. otherwise lets wait till next week.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    Oh don't merge yet!


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    As PR states is WIP , is just to give visibility to all


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    3) section overlaid with references to other products removed.
    6) with the reduction of the war and removal of features, this seems to no longer be generated
    2) about page now fully customised with wording coming from https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/, a small powered by is also added, as well as version section now including artemis version


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    7 - custom help, with iframe loading the artemis docs (note would be nicer if we had an alias on the web for https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/LATEST so we don't have to code in the link version)
   



---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    @clebertsuconic i think I've address'ed now 1-9 on the list Dan gave. Only bit left is adding/updating artemis LICENSE/NOTICE.
   
    Whats the process on this.
   
    Is it manual or is it automated, who needs to verify it?
   
    After this the only last bit is aligning up the login (so don't have to bypass)


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

franz1981
In reply to this post by franz1981
Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
 
    Update on 7) made it use the local user-guide available.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

clebertsuconic
It seems that this is almost ready.. if we fix logging it could be merged...


It would be awesome if we could have the next release with this
already... even if we delay another week.


@Dan: WDYT?

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, michaelandrepearce <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
>
>     https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
>
>     Update on 7) made it use the local user-guide available.
>
>
> ---
> If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
> reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
> enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
> contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
> with INFRA.
> ---



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

tabish121@gmail.com
On 07/06/2017 10:15 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> It seems that this is almost ready.. if we fix logging it could be merged...
>
>
> It would be awesome if we could have the next release with this
> already... even if we delay another week.
Nothing stopping you from releasing now and then releasing again once
it's ready.

>
> @Dan: WDYT?
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:45 AM, michaelandrepearce <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Github user michaelandrepearce commented on the issue:
>>
>>      https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385
>>
>>      Update on 7) made it use the local user-guide available.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
>> reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
>> enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
>> contact infrastructure at [hidden email] or file a JIRA ticket
>> with INFRA.
>> ---
>
>

--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

clebertsuconic
> Nothing stopping you from releasing now and then releasing again once it's
> ready.


Sure.. but if it's just 3 or 4 days before it's ready, I would wait.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

Daniel Kulp
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It seems that this is almost ready.. if we fix logging it could be merged...
>
>
> It would be awesome if we could have the next release with this
> already... even if we delay another week.
>
>
> @Dan: WDYT?

Well, there are basically 4 “types” of things that need to be taken care of:

1) Branding/skinning/packaging : this is what my lists have been concentrating on.  Things are certainly looking better there.   I just did a build and things look much better.  I’m “slightly” concerned about the downgrade from 1.5.2 to 1.5.0 which I’m assuming is due to the flight recorder stuff.   Certainly OK for now, but longer term I think we’d like a better option so that we can get whatever security fixes are needed in future versions.    There are some additional options to trim the war even further such as an overlay config of:

          <overlays>
              <overlay>
                  <groupId>io.hawt</groupId>
                  <artifactId>hawtio-web</artifactId>
                  <excludes>
                      <exclude>bower_components/**/*</exclude>
                      <exclude>app/site/**/*</exclude>
                      <exclude>app/core/**/*</exclude>
                  </excludes>
              </overlay>
          </overlays>

2) Actual capabilities :  I haven’t looked at this at all.   Art had a list of things he expected to be able to manage based on the capabilities of the 5.x console.   I’m not sure if his list is completely covered by the new plugin or not as I haven’t looked at this aspect.


3) Integration : there are gaps here related to logging, security, user/roles, etc… For testing, we’re currently bypassing all of this.

4) Legal : There are MAJOR updates needed for the License/Notice files.   It’s a shame that the hawt.io folks aren’t doing this properly and meeting the legal requirements of the licenses of everything they are including.  Just means we’re going to have to do it.   This is the big thing as I have no idea how long this will take.   For every file in the war (and every file within the jars within the war), we need to check it’s license status and figure out what needs to be added to the license and notice files.   That’s not trivial.    With the above excludes, large chunks of things go away (the bootstrap/docs for example are CC-BY which has notice requirements) so there is less work to do, but there are still a bunch of things in there.


Because 4 is a big “unknown” and I have no idea on 2, I really wouldn’t hold up the current releases for it.    In addition, since this is a “big change”, I’d certainly want to make sure the rest of the community that hasn’t looked at it gets a good chance to do so prior to a release.   Gut feeling is that this is much more than a “3-4 day delay”.  


--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

MichaelAndrePearce
My view on 2 is that currently there is no capability having anything is better than none.

Any extra features can be added over time by those willing to contribute.

Indeed there are some bits I'd like to add but having something is better than nothing and certainly can now start the ball rolling.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Jul 2017, at 17:21, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It seems that this is almost ready.. if we fix logging it could be merged...
>>
>>
>> It would be awesome if we could have the next release with this
>> already... even if we delay another week.
>>
>>
>> @Dan: WDYT?
>
> Well, there are basically 4 “types” of things that need to be taken care of:
>
> 1) Branding/skinning/packaging : this is what my lists have been concentrating on.  Things are certainly looking better there.   I just did a build and things look much better.  I’m “slightly” concerned about the downgrade from 1.5.2 to 1.5.0 which I’m assuming is due to the flight recorder stuff.   Certainly OK for now, but longer term I think we’d like a better option so that we can get whatever security fixes are needed in future versions.    There are some additional options to trim the war even further such as an overlay config of:
>
>          <overlays>
>              <overlay>
>                  <groupId>io.hawt</groupId>
>                  <artifactId>hawtio-web</artifactId>
>                  <excludes>
>                      <exclude>bower_components/**/*</exclude>
>                      <exclude>app/site/**/*</exclude>
>                      <exclude>app/core/**/*</exclude>
>                  </excludes>
>              </overlay>
>          </overlays>
>
> 2) Actual capabilities :  I haven’t looked at this at all.   Art had a list of things he expected to be able to manage based on the capabilities of the 5.x console.   I’m not sure if his list is completely covered by the new plugin or not as I haven’t looked at this aspect.
>
>
> 3) Integration : there are gaps here related to logging, security, user/roles, etc… For testing, we’re currently bypassing all of this.
>
> 4) Legal : There are MAJOR updates needed for the License/Notice files.   It’s a shame that the hawt.io folks aren’t doing this properly and meeting the legal requirements of the licenses of everything they are including.  Just means we’re going to have to do it.   This is the big thing as I have no idea how long this will take.   For every file in the war (and every file within the jars within the war), we need to check it’s license status and figure out what needs to be added to the license and notice files.   That’s not trivial.    With the above excludes, large chunks of things go away (the bootstrap/docs for example are CC-BY which has notice requirements) so there is less work to do, but there are still a bunch of things in there.
>
>
> Because 4 is a big “unknown” and I have no idea on 2, I really wouldn’t hold up the current releases for it.    In addition, since this is a “big change”, I’d certainly want to make sure the rest of the community that hasn’t looked at it gets a good chance to do so prior to a release.   Gut feeling is that this is much more than a “3-4 day delay”.  
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

Daniel Kulp

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Michael André Pearce <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My view on 2 is that currently there is no capability having anything is better than none.
>
> Any extra features can be added over time by those willing to contribute.
>
> Indeed there are some bits I'd like to add but having something is better than nothing and certainly can now start the ball rolling.

Well, yes and no.    Once "released", you kind of have to build off of what’s there and continue to support that way of doing things.   If what’s there doesn’t make any sense and needs to be completely re-organized or something, that could be difficult if we have to continue supporting the current layout.   Kind of like a backwards compatibility thing.    I’d like a few folks to make sure that what’s there makes some sense going forward and adding the stuff that is missing can be done by extending what’s there in a way that makes sense.    That said, for the first release, if we kind of release note the console as a “technology preview, subject to change” or similar, I’d be less concerned.

Dan



>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 6 Jul 2017, at 17:21, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems that this is almost ready.. if we fix logging it could be merged...
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be awesome if we could have the next release with this
>>> already... even if we delay another week.
>>>
>>>
>>> @Dan: WDYT?
>>
>> Well, there are basically 4 “types” of things that need to be taken care of:
>>
>> 1) Branding/skinning/packaging : this is what my lists have been concentrating on.  Things are certainly looking better there.   I just did a build and things look much better.  I’m “slightly” concerned about the downgrade from 1.5.2 to 1.5.0 which I’m assuming is due to the flight recorder stuff.   Certainly OK for now, but longer term I think we’d like a better option so that we can get whatever security fixes are needed in future versions.    There are some additional options to trim the war even further such as an overlay config of:
>>
>>         <overlays>
>>             <overlay>
>>                 <groupId>io.hawt</groupId>
>>                 <artifactId>hawtio-web</artifactId>
>>                 <excludes>
>>                     <exclude>bower_components/**/*</exclude>
>>                     <exclude>app/site/**/*</exclude>
>>                     <exclude>app/core/**/*</exclude>
>>                 </excludes>
>>             </overlay>
>>         </overlays>
>>
>> 2) Actual capabilities :  I haven’t looked at this at all.   Art had a list of things he expected to be able to manage based on the capabilities of the 5.x console.   I’m not sure if his list is completely covered by the new plugin or not as I haven’t looked at this aspect.
>>
>>
>> 3) Integration : there are gaps here related to logging, security, user/roles, etc… For testing, we’re currently bypassing all of this.
>>
>> 4) Legal : There are MAJOR updates needed for the License/Notice files.   It’s a shame that the hawt.io folks aren’t doing this properly and meeting the legal requirements of the licenses of everything they are including.  Just means we’re going to have to do it.   This is the big thing as I have no idea how long this will take.   For every file in the war (and every file within the jars within the war), we need to check it’s license status and figure out what needs to be added to the license and notice files.   That’s not trivial.    With the above excludes, large chunks of things go away (the bootstrap/docs for example are CC-BY which has notice requirements) so there is less work to do, but there are still a bunch of things in there.
>>
>>
>> Because 4 is a big “unknown” and I have no idea on 2, I really wouldn’t hold up the current releases for it.    In addition, since this is a “big change”, I’d certainly want to make sure the rest of the community that hasn’t looked at it gets a good chance to do so prior to a release.   Gut feeling is that this is much more than a “3-4 day delay”.  
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

MichaelAndrePearce
I think having it for one version as a release preview is a good approach that way we can get feedback also earlier on what we may want to add in which priority. Nothing better than user feedback which we only get after release

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Jul 2017, at 18:06, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Michael André Pearce <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> My view on 2 is that currently there is no capability having anything is better than none.
>>
>> Any extra features can be added over time by those willing to contribute.
>>
>> Indeed there are some bits I'd like to add but having something is better than nothing and certainly can now start the ball rolling.
>
> Well, yes and no.    Once "released", you kind of have to build off of what’s there and continue to support that way of doing things.   If what’s there doesn’t make any sense and needs to be completely re-organized or something, that could be difficult if we have to continue supporting the current layout.   Kind of like a backwards compatibility thing.    I’d like a few folks to make sure that what’s there makes some sense going forward and adding the stuff that is missing can be done by extending what’s there in a way that makes sense.    That said, for the first release, if we kind of release note the console as a “technology preview, subject to change” or similar, I’d be less concerned.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 6 Jul 2017, at 17:21, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It seems that this is almost ready.. if we fix logging it could be merged...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be awesome if we could have the next release with this
>>>> already... even if we delay another week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @Dan: WDYT?
>>>
>>> Well, there are basically 4 “types” of things that need to be taken care of:
>>>
>>> 1) Branding/skinning/packaging : this is what my lists have been concentrating on.  Things are certainly looking better there.   I just did a build and things look much better.  I’m “slightly” concerned about the downgrade from 1.5.2 to 1.5.0 which I’m assuming is due to the flight recorder stuff.   Certainly OK for now, but longer term I think we’d like a better option so that we can get whatever security fixes are needed in future versions.    There are some additional options to trim the war even further such as an overlay config of:
>>>
>>>        <overlays>
>>>            <overlay>
>>>                <groupId>io.hawt</groupId>
>>>                <artifactId>hawtio-web</artifactId>
>>>                <excludes>
>>>                    <exclude>bower_components/**/*</exclude>
>>>                    <exclude>app/site/**/*</exclude>
>>>                    <exclude>app/core/**/*</exclude>
>>>                </excludes>
>>>            </overlay>
>>>        </overlays>
>>>
>>> 2) Actual capabilities :  I haven’t looked at this at all.   Art had a list of things he expected to be able to manage based on the capabilities of the 5.x console.   I’m not sure if his list is completely covered by the new plugin or not as I haven’t looked at this aspect.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) Integration : there are gaps here related to logging, security, user/roles, etc… For testing, we’re currently bypassing all of this.
>>>
>>> 4) Legal : There are MAJOR updates needed for the License/Notice files.   It’s a shame that the hawt.io folks aren’t doing this properly and meeting the legal requirements of the licenses of everything they are including.  Just means we’re going to have to do it.   This is the big thing as I have no idea how long this will take.   For every file in the war (and every file within the jars within the war), we need to check it’s license status and figure out what needs to be added to the license and notice files.   That’s not trivial.    With the above excludes, large chunks of things go away (the bootstrap/docs for example are CC-BY which has notice requirements) so there is less work to do, but there are still a bunch of things in there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because 4 is a big “unknown” and I have no idea on 2, I really wouldn’t hold up the current releases for it.    In addition, since this is a “big change”, I’d certainly want to make sure the rest of the community that hasn’t looked at it gets a good chance to do so prior to a release.   Gut feeling is that this is much more than a “3-4 day delay”.  
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by Daniel Kulp
> Well, yes and no.    Once "released", you kind of have to build off of what’s there and continue to support that way of doing things.   If what’s there doesn’t make any sense and needs to be completely re-organized or something, that could be difficult if we have to continue supporting the current layout.   Kind of like a backwards compatibility thing.    I’d like a few folks to make sure that what’s there makes some sense going forward and adding the stuff that is missing can be done by extending what’s there in a way that makes sense.    That said, for the first release, if we kind of release note the console as a “technology preview, subject to change” or similar, I’d be less concerned.

We would just need to define criteria to bump releases..

supposing current master is at 2.2.x... and there's already a console
in place...

a major rework on the console would bump the release to 2.3.0 or 3.0.0 ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1385: ARTEMIS-1270 Management Console - Hawtio Solut...

clebertsuconic
and that would be the same as any previous branch... 1.x still active
in Artemis, we cherry-pick fixes all the time... and same with
previous branches on activemq.. it's a common thing here.. nothing
different.

you rework the console, you bump the release.. and if users still need
the older version we can cherry-pick fixes for current production
systems.


I would say we leave the discussion for when it happens.. it would
depend on the extent of the rework.. if it's compatible or not.. etc..
etc...

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Well, yes and no.    Once "released", you kind of have to build off of what’s there and continue to support that way of doing things.   If what’s there doesn’t make any sense and needs to be completely re-organized or something, that could be difficult if we have to continue supporting the current layout.   Kind of like a backwards compatibility thing.    I’d like a few folks to make sure that what’s there makes some sense going forward and adding the stuff that is missing can be done by extending what’s there in a way that makes sense.    That said, for the first release, if we kind of release note the console as a “technology preview, subject to change” or similar, I’d be less concerned.
>
> We would just need to define criteria to bump releases..
>
> supposing current master is at 2.2.x... and there's already a console
> in place...
>
> a major rework on the console would bump the release to 2.3.0 or 3.0.0 ?



--
Clebert Suconic
12
Loading...