On Thursday 21 November 2013 11:29:45 Adam Spiers wrote: > [lots of very good remarks,as usual...]
I agree with Adam that the main repo has to have proper branches for releases. Once we have that, we can cleanup the confusing directory layout (hey, iit's only 20 install-chef.sh scripts, nice). On the other hand, we could probably kill some branches across repos. This is what I currently have just for the "crowbar" remote: remotes/crowbar/andi-node-alloc-change remotes/crowbar/feature/cb20_devguide/master remotes/crowbar/feature/folsom/master remotes/crowbar/feature/grizzly/master remotes/crowbar/feature/pfs-folsom/master remotes/crowbar/judd-cmdb remotes/crowbar/master remotes/crowbar/perf-imp remotes/crowbar/pull-req/cloudedge/485 remotes/crowbar/release/betty/master remotes/crowbar/release/elefante/master remotes/crowbar/release/essex-hack/master remotes/crowbar/release/fledermaus/master remotes/crowbar/release/fred/master remotes/crowbar/release/hadoop-2.1/master remotes/crowbar/release/hadoop-2.2/master remotes/crowbar/release/hadoop-2.3/master remotes/crowbar/release/mesa-1.6.1/master remotes/crowbar/release/mesa-1.6.1/openstack-build/master remotes/crowbar/release/mesa-1.6/master remotes/crowbar/release/mesa-1.7/master remotes/crowbar/release/mesa.1.6.1/master remotes/crowbar/release/pebbles/master remotes/crowbar/release/rails3anddb/master remotes/crowbar/release/roxy/master remotes/crowbar/rob-bc-import remotes/crowbar/topic/opensuse-12.3-iso remotes/crowbar/v1.2-openstack remotes/crowbar/v1.2.1-openstack So we have some hack-of-the-day branches, we got feature/ branches (why?) and we keep release branches for ancient stuff. If I'd be a newcomer, I would wonder what to look at. More honestly, this looks like a typical SVN branches/ tree to me. Do we really need 5 different mesa branches? Do we really use git tags as we could do? Does "andi-node-alloc-change" really belong into the crowbar org rather than Andi's clone? Another example is "topic/opensuse-12.3- iso". I'm sure this was just done we have other feature branches pushed here as well but this really belongs into a private clone. If someone wanted to work on the feature too, he would just add a new (git) remote to his local clone, work there and submit back to John's clone. When looking at the full picture (http://paste.opensuse.org/90805842) I feel a little lost in SVN-country :-) Lastly, what are fred, betty and pebbles about anyway? Though I know we already discussed this particular aspect to death, but the whole release naming is broken. As a newcomer, I would be inclined to think releases are named alphabetically (like _E_ssex, _F_olsom, _G_rizzly), but in fact they aren't. Semantic versioning would also work. I would also wonder why we append /master to every branch :-) Why not just "release/roxy" ? Or better "stable/roxy" which seems like a more common pattern in the git world. -- With kind regards, Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
