All the branching doesn't address the confusing situation for newbies who we are trying to attract to the project. Since we'll be leaving a huge portion of the 1.x codebase behind for good and forever, I think the gains of making it easy for newbies to join FAR outweighs branching and cleaning up.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Adam Spiers <aspi...@suse.com> wrote: > christopher_dearb...@dell.com (christopher_dearb...@dell.com) wrote: > > Rob, > > > > I think you misunderstood my recommendation below. What I'm > > proposing is that we branch everything, including the main Crowbar > > repo. > > I think I'm on the same page as you here Chris, although the above > statement makes it sound like a much bigger deal than it actually is! > All the barclamp repos are already branched, so all that needs to be > done is to branch the main repo, and split out non-release-specific > stuff. (I have been advocating for both of these actions for a long > time.) > > There would be NO risk of destabilising CB1, because that's exactly > the use case (git) branches were invented to handle in the first > place. > > > At this point in time, I'm not seeing the benefit of creating a new > > org since everything that we want done can be done with branching, > > which would involve creating no new repos at all, while creating a > > new org would create duplicate repos of every one that we have > > today. > > Correct. Furthermore I have not yet heard any proposals how to > address the numerous concerns I raised about creating a second > organisation (quoted again below for reference). On the flip side, > the only disadvantage I can think of caused by keeping a single org is > that people can't trivially choose how to be notified at per-release > granularity. However this seems to be achievable via RSS: > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7353538/setting-up-an-github-commit-rss-feed > > Hopefully we can iron this all out in 70 minutes from now. To anyone > who intends to participate in the discussion, it would be very helpful > if you could glance over this first: > > http://crowbar.sync.in/crowbar-repos > > > Rob Hirschfeld <rob_hirschf...@dell.com> wrote: > > > That's a clear +1 towards new Github Org to me. > > > > Hmm, that's not clear to me - possibly the way to go, but I think > > that would require a lot more thought first. For example it raises > > the question of how the two organizations should be named, doubles > > the number of places issues can be tracked, potentially causes > > confusion over which wiki should be used, and which repo should host > > the website. It also doubles the number of (push) access lists and > > subscriptions to be managed. The plus side of that is that commit > > rights and notifications could be per-release ... for *now*, but > > only until Crowbar 3, at which point it's not at all clear what > > would be the right path. A github org per release is WAY overkill. > > > > Another reasonable route is to create new repositories within the > > existing org. There are pros and cons to this too. > > > > A third route is simply to break out the top-level repo (and the dev > > tool with it) into more sensible chunks. That's the least invasive > > approach, and the one which I (and I think *probably* Victor too) > > had in mind when we discussed it. > > > > Whichever approach we take, we should be clear that creating a new > > github org or repos is not the silver bullet. The real hard work is > > doing the cleanup. That *must* include getting rid of the releases/ > > tree. I am absolutely convinced that the *only* way to go is to > > have strictly a git branch per release, with the branch names > > unified across all repos which contain any release-specific data, as > > detailed at <http://crowbar.sync.in/crowbar-repos>. It also must > > include removing unused cruft which currently achieves nothing > > except confusing people :) > > > > > That aligns with other discussions that generally say "thank > > > goodness, yes!" Anyone have objections or issues? > > > > I wouldn't be keen on seeing a new org until I'm clear about the > > answers to the above questions. > > _______________________________________________ > Crowbar mailing list > Crowbar@dell.com > https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar > For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/ > -- Judd Maltin T: 917-882-1270 F: 501-694-7809 what could possibly go wrong?
_______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
