Copy over Smuggler v1.0.0 code base.

[c0c0n3]

This repo starts as an exact copy of Smuggler's code base at tag v1.0.0:

• https://github.com/c0c0n3/ome-smuggler/tree/v1.0.0

[jburel]

I have enabled travis on this repo

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@081c8b7). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage is 81.14%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master       #1   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   81.75%           
  Complexity        ?     1256           
=========================================
  Files             ?      287           
  Lines             ?     3804           
  Branches          ?      177           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     3110           
  Misses            ?      589           
  Partials          ?      105

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...ain/java/ome/smuggler/config/data/MailYmlFile.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
.../main/java/ome/smuggler/config/items/LogLevel.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...smuggler/config/wiring/omero/OmeroConfigBeans.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...ggler/config/items/SpringBootAdminConfigProps.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...e/smuggler/config/data/SpringBootAppPropsFile.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...e/smuggler/config/items/SpringBootConfigProps.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...me/smuggler/config/items/ActuatorEndPointName.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...ver/src/main/java/ome/smuggler/run/MailYmlGen.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...java/ome/smuggler/core/types/MailConfigReader.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
...ain/java/ome/smuggler/config/items/MailConfig.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (?)
... and 198 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 081c8b7...3cc2245. Read the comment docs.

[joshmoore]

@jburel @c0c0n3 : are there any plans re: versions for this repo? From my side, I was thinking:

• 0.1.0: the original smuggler 1.0.0 but refactored
• 0.2.0: first PRs, etc

but I could also imagine:

• 0.1.0: original smuggler 1.0.0 (no changes)
• 0.2.0: renames, etc.

cc: @sbesson

[jburel]

v1.0.0 is the working version in Montpellier (if I am not mistaken) That's the one I was thinking as the starting point i.e. 0.1.0 and then start refactoring from there. Let's have a quick chat this am

[c0c0n3]

@jburel @joshmoore @sbesson : I think it's best to hold off on versioning for now, especially if we want to use semantic versioning. In fact, I'll be hacking this thing to pieces (literally!) over the next couple of weeks, so if we followed the semantic versioning guidelines we'd have to use major version numbers even for a namespace change if that affects public APIs. So yah, let's have a chat about it later.

[joshmoore]

I think it's best to hold off on versioning for now, especially if we want to use semantic versioning.

Partially disagree. http://semver.org/#how-should-i-deal-with-revisions-in-the-0yz-initial-development-phase i.e. as soon as we have something we want to use anywhere, let's call that 0.1.0.

In fact, I'll be hacking this thing to pieces (literally!) over the next couple of weeks,

Guess as long as it's fairly time-boxed, that's fine. But I consider having a 0.1.0 soon quite a good thing.

if we followed the semantic versioning guidelines we'd have to use major version numbers even for a namespace change

Not during sub-1.

An alternative (suggested by @sbesson) would be to consider this state as 0.0.1 and then your first refactoring is 0.1.0.

[jburel]

Discussed via zoom with @c0c0n3 @joshmoore and @sbesson, merging and tagging to 0.1.0