[aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
qmx
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

qmx
Administrator
Howdy

I was reviewing aerogear-android-todo, and noticed some issues

1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently, ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
        - even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution
2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?
3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
        - Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version

-- qmx


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Bruno Oliveira
Comments inline….


-- 
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Douglas Campos wrote:

Howdy

I was reviewing aerogear-android-todo, and noticed some issues

1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently, ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
- even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution
Really? What's happened? Have we lost our contributions? Weird because at least on JavaScript, Kris has kept the ownership https://github.com/aerogear/as-quickstarts/commit/f3fe1aa4274487f711615687ef55044d11bf384a

Why the same is not happening on android? Does anyone need help to do it?

My suggestion is revert it and rebase with our contributions.
 
2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?
3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
- Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version

-- qmx


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Glen Daniels
Hey guys,

I figured that the Android stuff is sufficiently "prototypish" at this
phase that it wasn't hugely important to keep the history, which is why
I didn't merge over from
https://github.com/gdaniels/android-data/tree/master/android.  If we'd
rather have all the individual commits, I can do that (and if so,
merging an entire repo's commits into another one isn't something I've
done before, so I'd love pointers).

I'm not sure what the commit you referenced has to do with it, though,
Bruno?

I'll respond to qmx's other comments in a separate reply.

Thanks,
--Glen

On 9/20/12 9:38 PM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:

> Comments inline….
>
>
> --
> "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
> -
> @abstractj
> -
> Volenti Nihil Difficile
>
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Douglas Campos wrote:
>
>> Howdy
>>
>> I was reviewing aerogear-android-todo, and noticed some issues
>>
>> 1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently,
>> ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
>> - even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the
>> commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the
>> rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution
> Really? What's happened? Have we lost our contributions? Weird because
> at least on JavaScript, Kris has kept the
> ownership https://github.com/aerogear/as-quickstarts/commit/f3fe1aa4274487f711615687ef55044d11bf384a
>
> Why the same is not happening on android? Does anyone need help to do it?
>
> My suggestion is revert it and rebase with our contributions.
>  
>> 2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by
>> the archetype we are using?
>> 3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
>> - Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version
>>
>> -- qmx
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Glen Daniels
In reply to this post by qmx
Hey qmx,

On 9/20/12 9:29 PM, Douglas Campos wrote:
> 1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently, ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
> - even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution

(See last msg)

> 2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?

We're following a simple convention for the Android maven plugin
(http://code.google.com/p/maven-android-plugin/).  You can see a similar
example at
https://github.com/jayway/maven-android-plugin-samples/tree/master/helloflashlight.
 The idea is that it's an Android project first and a maven project second.

> 3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
> - Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version

Definitely!  This is mentioned in TODO comments in the code.  I wanted
to get the prototype up quickly to link it to
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-353, and didn't have time to
both merge in the new UI and split out the API jar.  Next on my list.

--Glen

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Bruno Oliveira
Glen, please rebase it and give the credits to the author.

This is not our common workflow.


-- 
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Glen Daniels wrote:

Hey qmx,

On 9/20/12 9:29 PM, Douglas Campos wrote:
1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently, ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
- even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution

(See last msg)

2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?

We're following a simple convention for the Android maven plugin
example at
The idea is that it's an Android project first and a maven project second.

3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
- Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version

Definitely! This is mentioned in TODO comments in the code. I wanted
to get the prototype up quickly to link it to
both merge in the new UI and split out the API jar. Next on my list.

--Glen

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Matthias Wessendorf
In reply to this post by Glen Daniels
>> 2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?
>
> We're following a simple convention for the Android maven plugin
> (http://code.google.com/p/maven-android-plugin/).  You can see a similar
> example at
> https://github.com/jayway/maven-android-plugin-samples/tree/master/helloflashlight.
>  The idea is that it's an Android project first and a maven project second.


I think using this format is right...
http://www.vogella.com/articles/AndroidBuildMaven/article.html

>> 3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
>>       - Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version
>
> Definitely!  This is mentioned in TODO comments in the code.  I wanted
> to get the prototype up quickly to link it to
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-353, and didn't have time to
> both merge in the new UI and split out the API jar.  Next on my list.

yeah +1 on separating the bits

-M

>
> --Glen
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Glen Daniels
In reply to this post by Bruno Oliveira
Hi Bruno,

On 9/21/12 5:22 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> Glen, please rebase it and give the credits to the author.

A little more context : there wasn't a lot of commit history on my repo,
so I figured preserving it wasn't very important.  In particular (since
I think this might be what you're concerned about), the stuff from
Daniel wasn't an explicit contribution with a git history, it was just
my reusing a bunch of code from his prototype.  I did point to his repo
in the last commit message on the gdaniels/aerogear-data repo.

If it's attribution you're concerned about, I can simply add a note to
the README, or amend the initial commit message?

Kris just explained on IRC how to overwrite a repo with the contents of
another (via force push) - I'm happy to do that to copy over the commits
from https://github.com/gdaniels/android-data, but it seems like a lot
of work for minimal gain.

So I could:

1) Add acknowledgements to the README or last commit msg
2) Copy over the old repo (add aerogear/aerogear-todo as a remote of
gdaniels/aerogear, then force-push - then move things around a little to
get rid of empty top-level directory)

Thoughts, Bruno and others?

Thanks,
--Glen

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Jay Balunas
In reply to this post by Glen Daniels

On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Glen Daniels wrote:

Hey guys,

I figured that the Android stuff is sufficiently "prototypish" at this
phase that it wasn't hugely important to keep the history, which is why
I didn't merge over from
https://github.com/gdaniels/android-data/tree/master/android.  If we'd
rather have all the individual commits, I can do that (and if so,
merging an entire repo's commits into another one isn't something I've
done before, so I'd love pointers).

It is vitally important to keep history, especially when multiple contributors are involved.  If its you own prototype and no-one else is involved squash as you wish, but otherwise it's needed.

That said - we don't need every single commit ;-) Take a look at http://staging-aerogear.rhcloud.com/docs/guides/GitHubWorkflow/ for scoping/squashing commits.  


I'm not sure what the commit you referenced has to do with it, though,
Bruno?

I'll respond to qmx's other comments in a separate reply.

Thanks,
--Glen

On 9/20/12 9:38 PM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
Comments inline….


--
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Douglas Campos wrote:

Howdy

I was reviewing aerogear-android-todo, and noticed some issues

1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently,
ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
- even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the
commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the
rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution
Really? What's happened? Have we lost our contributions? Weird because
at least on JavaScript, Kris has kept the
ownership https://github.com/aerogear/as-quickstarts/commit/f3fe1aa4274487f711615687ef55044d11bf384a

Why the same is not happening on android? Does anyone need help to do it?

My suggestion is revert it and rebase with our contributions.

2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by
the archetype we are using?
3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
- Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version

-- qmx


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Jay Balunas
In reply to this post by Glen Daniels

On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:52 PM, Glen Daniels wrote:

> Hey qmx,
>
> On 9/20/12 9:29 PM, Douglas Campos wrote:
>> 1) Why there is no history on the project? (and consequently, ownership history - passos contributed code hasn't got attribution)
>> - even in cases of big rewrites and start-overs, it's nice to keep the commits, as the history of the incremental changes say a lot about the rationale/train of thought that lead to the final solution
>
> (See last msg)
>
>> 2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?
>
> We're following a simple convention for the Android maven plugin
> (http://code.google.com/p/maven-android-plugin/).  You can see a similar
> example at
> https://github.com/jayway/maven-android-plugin-samples/tree/master/helloflashlight.
> The idea is that it's an Android project first and a maven project second.

The link that Matthias provided looks like a good approach for this, what do you think?

>
>> 3) Why the API and the example app are intermixed?
>> - Ideally these should be separate repositories, like the iOS version
>
> Definitely!  This is mentioned in TODO comments in the code.  I wanted
> to get the prototype up quickly to link it to
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-353, and didn't have time to
> both merge in the new UI and split out the API jar.  Next on my list.

Is this captured in jira?  It would be very good to get this tracked there.  

>
> --Glen
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Glen Daniels
In reply to this post by Glen Daniels
On 9/21/12 8:01 AM, Glen Daniels wrote:
> 2) Copy over the old repo (add aerogear/aerogear-todo as a remote of
> gdaniels/aerogear, then force-push - then move things around a little to
> get rid of empty top-level directory)

Just did this, think we're all set now.

--Glen


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Glen Daniels
In reply to this post by Matthias Wessendorf
Hi Matthias,

On 9/21/12 7:41 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:

>>> 2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?
>>
>> We're following a simple convention for the Android maven plugin
>> (http://code.google.com/p/maven-android-plugin/).  You can see a similar
>> example at
>> https://github.com/jayway/maven-android-plugin-samples/tree/master/helloflashlight.
>>  The idea is that it's an Android project first and a maven project second.
>
> I think using this format is right...
> http://www.vogella.com/articles/AndroidBuildMaven/article.html

AFAICT, that article just points back to the maven-android-plugin, and
doesn't say anything different about structure.  Am I missing something?

Thanks,
--Glen


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [aerogear-android-todo]

Matthias Wessendorf
correct - also indicating the same layout (see <sourceDirectory /> tag
in that article)

-M

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Glen Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 9/21/12 7:41 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>> 2) Why aren't we following the maven project layout, as suggested by the archetype we are using?
>>>
>>> We're following a simple convention for the Android maven plugin
>>> (http://code.google.com/p/maven-android-plugin/).  You can see a similar
>>> example at
>>> https://github.com/jayway/maven-android-plugin-samples/tree/master/helloflashlight.
>>>  The idea is that it's an Android project first and a maven project second.
>>
>> I think using this format is right...
>> http://www.vogella.com/articles/AndroidBuildMaven/article.html
>
> AFAICT, that article just points back to the maven-android-plugin, and
> doesn't say anything different about structure.  Am I missing something?
>
> Thanks,
> --Glen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev