Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Dragan Ivanovic

Saved on

compared with

New Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Dragan Ivanovic

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Brian Lowe  
  2. Georgy Litvinov 
  3. Ralph O'Flinn 
  4. William Welling Benjamin Gross (star)
  5. Dragan Ivanovic 
  6. Huda Khan 

...

  1. Releases management
    1. Status
      1. Making VIVO 1.12.1 functional
        1. https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/pull/3611 
    2. Next steps
      1. Possible solutions
        1. Docker container for preparation of a release
        2. Pair deployment / preparation of a release
  2. Improvement of contribution process
    1. Contributor License Agreements ???
      1. Do we want that?
        1. https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems
      2. Optionally?
    2. Contributing code with a fork, branches, and pull requests
    3. discourage large PRs
      1. PR templates updated
        1. https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
        2. https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/wiki/Development-Processes

  3. Moving forward reviewing PRs on VIVO and Vitro

    1. https://github.com/vivo-project/Vitro/pulls and https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/pull
  4. Add Spring/Spring Boot in VIVO
    1. There is some progress

Notes

  1. Releases management
    1. Status
      1. Making VIVO 1.12.1 functional
        1. https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/pull/3611 
      2. Dragan: Ben created a PR resolving the issue of missing i18n folder in the war file, Georgy reviewed that PR, it works well
      3. Georgy: probably it is not 1.12.1, but some other patch 
    2. Next steps
      1. Possible solutions for making the process more efficient

      1. We are switching to time-based publishing releases process, therefore we need
        1. Efficient process
        2. Well documented
        3. More members capable to do that as a backup solution if Ralph is not available
          4. Possible solutions
        4. Docker container for preparation of a release
        5. Pair deployment / preparation of a release
      2. Dragan: we will continue discussion about this when Ralph is in call and hopefully has some feedback on making a Docker container for preparation of a release
  2. Improvement of contribution process
    1. Contributor License Agreements ???
      1. Do we want that?
        1. https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems
        2. Dragan: Do you see any problem for you personally to sign this document
        3. All: no problem for us
        4. Brian: Not sure we need this
        5. Georgy: It might be problematic for some contributor
        6. Georgy: What about sending an email with statement that he/she is contributing a code
          1. Dragan: I am not a lawyer, but not sure this is a solution from the point of view of law
          2. Georgy: This approach is used in some communities
      2. Optionally?
        1. William: For me, we have only two solutions, required CLA or not included in the contribution process, I don't see any benefit of optional signing CLA, probably nobody will sign it
      3. Dragan: I will discuss this again with Lyrasis officer, we can conclude that committers are not against this idea, and willing to sign the individual CLA, but not sure how it might be accepted by future contributor
    2. Contributing code with a fork, branches, and pull requests
      1. Dragan: I have added one point related to CLA, starting with "please, sign", depending on conversation with Lyrasis officers how this sentence will be modified (or completely removed)
    3. discourage large PRs
      1. Dragan: Probably not always possible
      2. Dragan updated PR templates.  Added one question in the PR template for large PR about why the certain PR has to be large and can't be decoupled to smaller PRsPR templates updated
        1. https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
        2. https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/wiki/Development-Processes

  3. Moving forward reviewing PRs on VIVO and Vitro

    1. https://github.com/vivo-project/Vitro/pulls and  and https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/pulls
    2. Tiny and big PRs classification, GitHub labels introduced - small, middle, large PR
      1. assignments of labels done for 2021 PRs
    3. Assignment of reviewers
      1. done for 2021 PRs
      2. please, check and inform me if you are available and willing to perform review (and provide some estimation when that can happen)
    4. Using slack and core committers meetings for pre-reviewing discussion and reporting
    5. How to proceed with old PRs
      1. contributors are not active anymore in the VIVO community
      2. merging conflicts
        1. organization of repository might be changed
  4. Add Spring/Spring Boot in VIVO
    1. Dragan: There is some progress. Veljko Maksimovic is working on this feature. It should enable easy running and debugging of the VIVO application.
    2. Georgy: I don't see some issue in debugging in Eclipse by using tomcat as a service. 
    3. William: I think adding Spring is more important than Spring Boot. Spring Boot is just easy set up and running of Spring. Spring has some features which might help us in future.
    4. Georgy: It might also introduce some complexity and new issues.
    5. Dragan: It might introduce issues, but we will resolve those issues. It is de facto standard for today Java web application

...

    1. , it might be easier for new contributor to start contributing. 
    2. Georgy: There are also other alternative at the market for some Spring features, for instance for dependency injection, and it should be consider. Anyway, we need a plan and discussion about that. I am not against Spring, but we should plan it carefully. 
  2. Dynamic API
    1. Georgy: I have created collaboration diagram for Dynamic API - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I1aKVWlSsvLOjEAI5_u1ck0ieuzSdX6y/view. 
    2. Dragan: What is position of validators in this diagram
    3. Georgy: Probably should be integrated within Action processing flow
    4. Georgy: I will try to add some details in diagram and to work on proof of concept

Draft notes on Google Drive

Actions 

...

  •  Ralph O'Flinn to resolve missing i18n directory issue in VIVO 1.12.1 release
  •  Dragan Ivanovic to update PR template to discourage large PRs or at least to ask contributor for reason why it is necessary to have large PR
  •  Dragan Ivanovic to help Ralph in resolving publishing releases issue. Also, to try to improve documentation. 
  •  Dragan Ivanovic to assign PRs to reviewers (committers)
  •  Later, we can improve contribution policy, including closing PR with inactive PR creators (who didn't responded on comments). We should also consider introducing Contributor license agreements in the process - link 
  •  All to read and provide feedback for   VIVO 2.0 architecture https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z51mkqlAopQ2rLkitHiQVwRojijnPM9pB8tQelW-lSA/edit?usp=sharing
  • Georgy Litvinov to add some details in the Dynamic API diagram and continue working on proof of concept
  •  Dragan Ivanovic to discuss with Lyrasis officer whether we need Contributor license agreements in the process

Previous actions