So I'm coming back on this topic. Clearly, there was no progress on having sledgehammer-common code not shared between all branches. But still, we can move forward. I've submitted the following pull request to change sledgehammer-common in a compatible way: https://github.com/crowbar/crowbar/pull/1891
If there's no objection against this, I'll re-submit the provisioner and logging changes later on. Le jeudi 30 mai 2013, à 16:45 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit : > Le jeudi 30 mai 2013, à 09:30 -0500, john_terps...@dell.com a écrit : > > Folks, > > > > Just to be clear - given that the code tree is broken right now - for all > > branches - the SledgeHammer log file change patches are being reverted. We > > need to get back to this asap and when we are all in the clear in respect > > of feature freezes and code freeze snap-shots that are being created. > > > > If this is NOT clear to anyone please bump me. > > I'm fine with reverting for now, but do we have a plan to make this > possible? I don't think we should keep blocking changes in the toplevel > crowbar repo because of a lack of branching strategy for this toplevel > repo. > > Vincent > > > - John T. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Adam Spiers > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:16 AM > > To: crowbar > > Subject: Re: [Crowbar] Change in sledgehammer-common impacting more than > > Pebbles > > > > Victor Lowther (victor_lowt...@dell.com) wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Vincent Untz > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:57 AM > > > > To: crowbar > > > > Subject: Re: [Crowbar] Change in sledgehammer-common impacting more > > > > than Pebbles > > > > > > > > Le jeudi 30 mai 2013, à 07:03 -0500, Victor Lowther a écrit : > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Vincent Untz <vu...@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I just realized that one of my commits that got merged will > > > > > > impact non-Pebbles branches, and might be an issue requiring > > > > > > changes in these branches too. This is the following commit: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/crowbar/crowbar/commit/29b97580c42bdfe1e0b548cff7 > > > > > > 73811eaeea16d9 > > > > > > > > > > > > In short, this is changing /install-logs to > > > > > > /var/log/crowbar/sledgehammer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is going to break rather a lot of stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other branches that are using the > > > > > > sledgehammer-common/start-up.sh file from crowbar master should > > > > > > probably be updated with commits like these > > > > > > ones: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-provisioner/commit/0290fc89b > > > > > > 4ca8 > > > > > > d446eac9c3140247f18166fd6f1 > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/crowbar/barclamp-logging/commit/9410dd876fc76 > > > > > > 03e0 > > > > > > ed9f34cefd78d7a4dcd4633 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No -- that is all the builds in all the releases, as Sledgehammer > > > > > is globally applicable to them all. Your changes modifying these > > > > > paths will have to be reverted and applied in a way that is > > > > > Pebbles specific, preferably by modifying control.sh in the > > > > > provisioner. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, I just don't get how we can change start-up.sh, then. > > > > Whatever we change there will always break a past release. If we > > > > revert this change, then it means we need to keep /install-logs/ as > > > > a NFS export, even in Pebbles. > > > > > > > > Is there a good reason all this sledgehammer stuff is not per-branch > > > > like everything else? > > > > > > There are reasons that seemed like a good idea at the time when we did > > > it a year and a half ago, > > > > So what are those reasons, and are they still considered good ideas? > > > > > and not everything else is per-branch -- the rest of the build system > > > and the test framework is also global. > > > > ... which means that every time we want to touch the build system or the > > test framework, we risk breaking them for every single release (where by > > "release" I mean Fred, Pebbles etc.). So the same question applies, is > > there a good reason for that? Because AFAICS unless it's a really really > > good one, it doesn't outweigh the drastic disadvantages of the status quo. > > > > If there *is* a really good reason, then the per-branch code should > > *not* live in the same repo as the globally-applicable code. > > > > > > Or alternatively: why do we even have a lot of stuff in start-up.sh? > > > > Why don't we move nearly all of this in control.sh, except for the > > > > mount for the one NFS export that will make control.sh accessible? > > > > > > Having control.sh take over from start-up.sh is in fact the direction I > > > have been going. > > > > Cool :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crowbar mailing list > > Crowbar@dell.com > > https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar > > For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crowbar mailing list > > Crowbar@dell.com > > https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar > > For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/ > > > > -- > Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. > > _______________________________________________ > Crowbar mailing list > Crowbar@dell.com > https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar > For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/ > -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. _______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
