<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Le 05/02/2013 14:00, Jean Rémond a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAO=cbAWb4DfAr=DzGpgVP-3FZR1rOHr1583uDRweTk_nRGhz2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Jonathan
Clarke <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jonathan.clarke@normation.com" target="_blank">jonathan.clarke@normation.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="im">
<div>On 05/02/13 13:40, Michael Gliwinski wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Sunday 03 Feb 2013 16:50:59 François Armand wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Michael Gliwinski <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Michael.Gliwinski@henderson-group.com" target="_blank"><Michael.Gliwinski@henderson-group.com></a> a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Sunday 03 Feb 2013 13:56:14 Jonathan Clarke wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>What do you think about this versioning policy, everyone?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>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 !)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>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 :|
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
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).<br>
<br>
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").<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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?
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
What about git subtree ?<br>
Unfortunately, it seems it does not mix well with github … <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3926683">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3926683</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Having a 'master Techniques' repository embracing independant
repositories, themselves managing an individual Technique, seems a
wonderful idea to me and definitely something we need in Rudder!<br>
<br>
It would provide a huge flexibility and ease the process to create
and maintain new Techniques.<br>
<br>
The last time we talked about this, we found gitslave, a tool that
may fits well for that purpose : <a
href="http://gitslave.sourceforge.net/index.html">http://gitslave.sourceforge.net/index.html</a>.
But we need to test it in our use case to see if it works well.<br>
<br>
Does anyone knows any drawbacks or limitations of gitslave? <br>
<br>
Thank you Jean to point git subtree out, I have never heard of if
before and it seems very interesting! I'll look into it to see if it
fits for our use case!<br>
<br>
Vincent<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>