[rudder-dev] adding feature to a technique

[Jean Rémond]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Jonathan Clarke <
jonathan.clarke at normation.com> wrote:

>  On 05/02/13 13:40, Michael Gliwinski wrote:
>
> On Sunday 03 Feb 2013 16:50:59 François Armand wrote:
>
>  Michael Gliwinski <Michael.Gliwinski at henderson-group.com> <Michael.Gliwinski at henderson-group.com> a écrit :
>
>  On Sunday 03 Feb 2013 13:56:14 Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>
>  What do you think about this versioning policy, everyone?
>
>  This makes perfect sense.  The only drawback I can see is that finding
> history
> of changes to a file (from vcs) will become more difficult because
> pretty much
> before starting development you'll be creating a copy.
>
> Unless the versioning could be somehow separated from the source?
>
>  Yeah, I'm thinking about a way to separate technique development from
> versioning in Rudder, so that Dev could use any VCS they want with any
> commit convention they choose, and have an other production-compliant
> versioning schema alike what Jon proposed. But well, I need some more
> thinking !)
>
>  I know, it's hard.  I thought about it some more and the only thing I could
> come up with that would preserve being able to version each technique
> individually was to split the repository so each technique has it's own, but
> that's probably a maintenance nightmare :|
>
>
> That is actually something we have been considering. This could make sense
> if third parties decide to create and maintain Techniques, and want to keep
> the "code" in their own source repository (imagine some tool, like
> ElasticSearch or Redmine or something, decides to create a Technique for
> Rudder to make it easier for people to install their tool, but want to
> maintain control over the Technique to be able to upgrade it for their
> customers/users/etc).
>
> I think last time we discussed it, we too decided it's the only way to
> have versioning per-Technique. But to make it really easy for users that
> don't care about changing Techniques, we should present a unique git
> repository that assembles all the individual ones (sort of a "aggregated
> proxy view").
>
> This is where things get complicated, because the "git way" to do this is
> via git-submodules, but they're a bit iffy... So we were considering
> setting up some scripts to automate this, so that everytime an individual
> Technique repo gets updated, we git clone it, and commit it into the
> "unique" repo. Each directory would be a git clone from the individual
> repos, and thus conserve versioning info (git supports one repo inside
> another).
>
> So, this is a possibility. It would involve quite a bit of work in the
> Rudder web interface to be able to get Technique versions from git instead
> of the filesystem, but it's not impossible. What do you think about this
> approach?
>
>
> Jonathan
>


What about git subtree ?
Unfortunately, it seems it does not mix well with github …
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3926683
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rudder-project.org/pipermail/rudder-dev/attachments/20130205/7e8eb560/attachment-0001.html>