powsybl-tsc@lists.lfenergy.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Hi all, Geoffroy and I started a discussion about the content of powsybl-core and the opportunity to well separate this repository because: - it is relatively big enough to be splitted - modules are

By BAGUE Mathieu · #30 · Edited

Re: Creation of new repositories #poll

Hi, We have designed additional profiles management in a very modular way (IIDM extensions + CGMES post processor plugin). For th powsybl-cgmes-gl its contains not only the web service but also a

By JAMGOTCHIAN Geoffroy · #29 ·

Re: Creation of new repositories #poll

Hi, Just a question about CGMES GL: are we sure we want to put the code of each profile (GL, DL, DY...) in different repositories? Or should we create a more generic CGMES repository (or put

By BAGUE Mathieu · #28 ·

Creation of new repositories #poll

By JAMGOTCHIAN Geoffroy · #27 ·

Re: New repositories in powsybl organization #poll

I created a PR in the documentation, to add a technical documentation section, a micro-services architecture diagram (and repo mapping) and a short description of each of the

By JAMGOTCHIAN Geoffroy · #26 ·

Re: New repositories in powsybl organization #poll

I think we can also create a page on the website to describe, for each repository, which features it offers. With the multiplication of the repositories, we need to have somewhere a clear picture of

By BAGUE Mathieu · #25 ·

Re: New repositories in powsybl organization #poll

This is mainly to prevent TSC members (people responsible of the technical direction of powsybl) ignoring what the point is of some repositories - a situation that can happen when repositories are

By VEDELAGO Miora · #24 ·

Re: New repositories in powsybl organization #poll

And also we should vote for any maven module, class, package and variable naming, right?

By JAMGOTCHIAN Geoffroy · #23 ·

New repositories in powsybl organization #poll

By VEDELAGO Miora · #22 ·

Re: IIDM Versionning - questions

Hi all, 1) Unfortunately I think the use case is important. If we don’t have this feature, if one application provides IIDM data to other applications and if that first application wants to

By LECLERC Sylvain · #21 ·

Re: Open discussion about powsybl-hpc, powsybl-afs and powsybl-gse

Hi, A summary, just to be sure I understand well the proposal: powsybl-hpc Review: Geoffroy (MPI), Sylvain (Slurm) Release: Sylvainpowsybl-afs Review: Paul, Geoffroy Release: Paul (release notes),

By BAGUE Mathieu · #20 ·

Re: IIDM Versionning - questions

I think there are organisational ways to solve this type of issues. However, I understand the use case shared. It also largely depends on the rythm of breaking changes creation in IIDM. If every two

By MURGEY Sebastien · #19 ·

Re: IIDM Versionning - questions

Hi Sebastien, all, When Miora and I thought to the backward compatibility, we considered an architecture with 3 systems that exchange networks, but with a cyclic dependency. How do you update IIDM API

By BAGUE Mathieu · #18 ·

Re: IIDM Versionning - questions

Hi all, On my side, I do not think the benefits of being able to do that kind of backward conversion are worth the complexity of the associated development. I do not have any critical use case for

By MURGEY Sebastien · #17 ·

IIDM Versionning - questions

Hi all, As you may know, we are currently working on the versionning of XIIDM. In this context, the main question we have is: do we need to handle the serialization of different versions? At first,

By VEDELAGO Miora · #16 ·

Re: Open discussion about powsybl-hpc, powsybl-afs and powsybl-gse

I also agree with the proposition. Geoffroy De : powsybl-tsc@... <powsybl-tsc@...> de la part de HARPER Jon via Lists.Lfenergy.Org <jon.harper=rte-france.com@...> Envoyé : lundi 18 novembre 2019

By JAMGOTCHIAN Geoffroy · #15 ·

Re: Open discussion about powsybl-hpc, powsybl-afs and powsybl-gse

I agree De : powsybl-tsc@... <powsybl-tsc@...> de la part de MURGEY Sebastien via Lists.Lfenergy.Org <sebastien.murgey=rte-france.com@...> Envoyé : lundi 18 novembre 2019 14:41 À :

By HARPER Jon · #14 ·

Re: Open discussion about powsybl-hpc, powsybl-afs and powsybl-gse

Hi, I have no remarks, and I agree with this proposition. Regards, Sébastien MURGEY

By MURGEY Sebastien · #13 ·

Re: Open discussion about powsybl-hpc, powsybl-afs and powsybl-gse

Hi all, @Sylvain: yes, there is a need for coordination for releases. I think a good solution would be to have a regular release for all repos (once every six weeks? or something like that?). Do you

By VEDELAGO Miora · #12 ·

Re: Open discussion about powsybl-hpc, powsybl-afs and powsybl-gse

Hi Anne, all, It would be OK for me to be in charge of powsybl-hpc releases. It may be obvious, but please note that for “second level” repos, releases of “core” repos may require a

By LECLERC Sylvain · #11 ·

141 - 160 of 168

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms