I totally agree, Arkady. That's why I propose using branches. Arkady Kanevsky (arkady_kanev...@dell.com) wrote: > We have a long term dependency on existing CB-1.x code base structure and > tools. > All the products released to date depends on it and must be reproducible. > > > From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Terpstra, John > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:29 AM > To: aspi...@suse.com; crowbar > Subject: Re: [Crowbar] Rationalizing Crowbar Project Infrastructure for our > new code base > > Unfortunately, our internal infrastructure makes use of DevTool to build and > test CB1.x - if we make the changes Adam suggests will take only 60 sec, it > will take several engineers from our team to update/change/fix the DevTool - > and all the Jenkins build systems we use, and will impose a load on our QA > team that we do not have resources to handle. > By splitting off the CB2.0 code into a new repo, we have zero impact on the > CB1.x tree upon which we will remain dependent for a number of years into the > future. We do not want to impact any responsibilities we have to meet change > and build requirements in the CB1.x code base. > Having CB2.0 code totally separate from CB1.x means that we all have a green > field to work from. > > - John T. > > -----Original Message----- > From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Adam Spiers > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:16 AM > To: crowbar > Subject: Re: [Crowbar] Rationalizing Crowbar Project Infrastructure for our > new code base > > Victor Lowther (victor.lowt...@gmail.com<mailto:victor.lowt...@gmail.com>) > wrote: > > I do not want to go back to having branches in the top-level repo -- I > > strongly prefer that it only hold release-independent (and therefore > > non-branch-needing) things, and pull in other repos that are branched > > based on release. > > We agree (as we already did in Austin) that the long term solution is to > split release-dependent and release-independent code into different > repositories. But this is useless as a short term solution - as has already > been pointed out, there is not spare resource or energy to do that any time > soon. > > Fortunately the workaround is ridiculously easy, which is why I have been > proposing it again and again until I am blue in the face: > > *immediately* branch the old releases in the main repo. I estimate I could > do this in about 60 seconds: > > cd ~/crowbar > for release in pebbles roxy whatever else we care about; do > git checkout -b release/$release/master > git push crowbar HEAD > done > > This would allow people who only care about 2.0 to hack away to their heart's > content in the master branch of the main repo, without the slightest fear of > breaking *anything* for the people who care about 1.x. > > Then any release-dependent code can be moved from master to other > repositories at our leisure, with no time pressure, and none of the awful > problems which the lack of branches in the main repo has been causing for the > last ~13 months. > > _______________________________________________ > Crowbar mailing list > Crowbar@dell.com<mailto: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/
