[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Splitting the repo

My question was not whether we should split the repo, but why? (Dividing things into more (or fewer) modules withing a single repo is a separate question.) Maybe I'm just not following what you mean by "more API oriented." It would force stabler APIs. 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

+1, even I think we could split the core even deeper.

I discussed with Luke and Reuven to introduce core-sql, core-schema,
core-sdf, ...

It's not a huge effort, and would allow us to move forward on Beam "more
API oriented" approach.


On 10/10/2018 10:12, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> While IMHO it's too early to even be able to split the repo, it's not to
> early to talk about it, and I wanted to spin this off to keep the other
> thread focused.
> In particular, I am trying to figure out exactly what is hoped to be
> gained by splitting things up. In my experience, a single project that
> spans multiple repos has always come with excessive overhead and pain.
> Of note, we recently merged the website and dataflow-worker into the
> main repo *exactly* to avoid this pain (though the latter was
> particularly bad due to one of the repos being private).
> If need be, I don't see any reason we can't have a single repo with
> directories
> model/
> website/
> java/
> go/
> ...
> possibly even with their own build system (unified only through a
> top-level "build everything" script that descends into each subdir and
> runs the appropriate command). I'm not saying we should do this (there
> is value in having a single consistent build system, etc.) but it's
> possible. We could probably even make separate releases out of this
> single repo (if we wanted, though given that our releases are time-based
> rather than feature-based, I don't see much advantage here).
> Also, there was the comment.
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:35 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmannibucau@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> Side note: beam portability would be saner if added on top of others
> than the opposite which is done today.
> I think you brought this up before, Romain. I'm still trying to wrap my
> head around what you mean here. Could you elaborate what such a
> structure would look like? 

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend - http://www.talend.com