[openspending-dev] openspending and openspendingjs as separate repositories

[Friedrich Lindenberg]

Hey Vitor,

you're probably right with your point about versioning - although we
used to have a stated relationship using submodules that we could just
revive. In either case, I'd be ok with combining the two, although I
believe we're trading in simplicity for us at the cost of new
contributors. One thing we should not end up with is having the JS at
openspending/ui/public/static/openspendingjs. Could we do a directory
called 'js' in the repo root and mount it via some kind of static
route?

Anyway, I don't think this is a killing priority as long as we use
feature branches.

- Fr

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Vitor Baptista <vitor at vitorbaptista.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The biggest problem that I see from using openspending/openspendingjs the
> way we're using is that we don't know which version of openspending is
> dependent on what other version in openspendingjs. For git, there's no
> relationship between the two.
>
> Also, it's strange that, if I want to see all commits that developed a
> story, I need to go in two separate stories.
>
> 2012/7/31 Friedrich Lindenberg <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org>
>>
>> From a practical point of view, I think that both are potentially
>> hackable by different groups: people who may want to contribute to
>> OpenSpendingJS can be visualisation experts who do not want to install
>> Python, OpenSpending, Postgres, RabbitMQ and Solr on their dev
>> machines. Instead, they can check out that repo, put in in their LAMP
>> install and go into their settings on OpenSpending.org to set a
>> user-custom script root, which will make OS.org get all of the scripts
>> off their local version, e.g. http://localhost/openspendingjs. Gregor
>> has been using it, and I think we should promote it more.
>
>
> They could clone openspending, but not run it. Simply go into
> openspending/ui/public/static/openspendingjs and do the changes there.
>
>>
>> As for merging parts of the JS back into OS: we could do that, but
>> then we potentially end up with two vendor lib archives - which I
>> think is more trouble than we gain.
>
>
> Agreed. I think everything related to openspending should be in
> openspending's repo.
>
> Cheers,
> Vítor.