On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Joël Grand-Guillaume < joel.grandguilla...@camptocamp.com> wrote:
> Dear all, > > > First thanks you Michel to take the time for that ! Now, I'm a bit > concerned because we didn't really face this before. > > The > https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openobject-addons/7.0-booking-chart > is more a module that should be included in one of our project, and I > don't which one, any idea ? > > Then the branch of the > https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/web-addons/7.0-web-unleashed > is on the right place, but it contains a branch replicated from github... > That prevent any merge to be done in the "official" community branch here : > lp:web-addons<https://code.launchpad.net/%7Ewebaddons-core-editors/web-addons/7.0> > > That's a bit sad.. Any suggestion here ? How to handle GitHub branches ? > Hello Joël and others, if a branch is Github driven and replicated on Launchpad, merging a Launchpad MP isn't that hard: in your git branch just import the branch using the native git ber remote helper http://felipec.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/git-remote-hg-bzr-2/ merge inside your git using usual git merge command, push to Github (then auto-replicated to Launchpad) and voila! Still Github submitted merges are easier to deal with. Of course, now if a module should integrate a branch driven on Launchpad, then probably it's better to let it be developed on Launchpad. Now a bit more about this: "should a module integrate some existing Launchpad branch?" In any case, people should remember that we currently group modules together just because OpenERP don't have any decent package manager that deal with version constraints and multiple repo location. And as you read this, please OpenERP SA don't try to reinvent a package manager (apps?), that's something hard, OpenERP should standardize instead of wasting resource on these solved problems. And again, it's not like if I am only "talking": https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openobject-server/trunk-extra-depdencies-info/+merge/114172 But in any case, grouping modules in the same branch is rather a temporary artifact and a bad design than anything else. Instead, once it becomes decent to install pinned versions via package manager and test with standard Continuous Integration tooling, **we should tend to 1 module = 1 branch** That's how all the modular dynamic ecosystems work. Of course, we could still have a few exceptions. If you take the Ruby ecosystem (extremely modular and works well), you see that usually 1 module = 1 Github repo. But as for the Rails repo, it's 5 modules altogether in the same repo (but only 5, while a typical Rails project will depend on 50+ modules). It's an exception and it still works. I know it less, but I think it's the same for Pypi, right? If we keep grouping modules blindly, that will not scale in term of complexity: soon there will be tons of merge for modules that are unknown to most of a project team, that will be slow/frustrating or badly reviewed. We will have branches of these god branches incompatible between them and branch cross dependencies nightmares. With that in mind, I think it would be an error to think that only a few people should determine a single forge for all the OpenERP eco-system, specially if that forge sucks (I didn't tell Launchpad sucks, you are interpreting here ;-) I think it really make sense to use a single forge for the core, but as for the whole eco-system, we would try to impose bad tooling to good willing people and that will not work. It's cool also to have OpenERP SA and OCA doing some centralization work trying to develop and review core modules, but in any case, it will never scale to imagine that just a dozen of people will review the entire eco-system at every-commit. I think that instead there will be lot's of projects, lot's of team, ideally good practices in many places and possibly some centralization but only for the core things. If if try to centralize and decide for everything, then we will have a sub-optimal core (because work is diluted with non core things) and a frustrated community that see its freedom to innovate restricted. Now <my personal opinion about Launchpad and bzr> it does the job, but hell it doesn't do it well. Here it's very common that bzr branch --stack addons takes over 20 minutes (1h30 without stacked) vs 8 minutes for the same Github shallow clone. Want to compare purchase_requisition in 7.0 against trunk? in git it's a breeze, in bzr slow as hell. If you have a bzr branch that you want to do pull after some 2 months (branch for some customer?), bzr pull can easily take more than 1 hour... (and we tried everything, local bzr mirrors etc...) Also I don't see much activity on bzr repo to fix this. It isn't really cloud ready and it's like both bzr and Launchpad are loosing the battle here. So I'm perfectly okay to contrib on Launchpad. But when I do so, I always think it's temporary and that one day anyway Launchpad will probably announce that it's closing and we will need to put all these little team and karma in the trash and move all that to some git (or hg) forge. Other things I don't like about LP: it really badly sells a project: navigation is awkward to newcomers, documentation isn't integrated, project dynamism doesn't drive to adhesion. Also, we aren't as rich as SAP or Microsoft, right? So what we need? We need contributors hell! but again Launchpad badly reward contributors vs Github that does it so well that a Github profile starts to be what a recruiter will look at to evaluate a job candidate (compare this to hackable karma...) Anyway this is just </my personal opinion about Launchpad and bzr> (now I said it) So as a conclusion: I say no to a dogma that we should group modules inside the same branches. That's only a temporary work-around while some believe or make believe things like apps is more important than pip modules. In the meanwhile, it's not because that there are several branches that there cannot be projects hub and their teams: a common team could take care of several projects, on several branches and possibly forges. Finally, I think we should investigate the great work of Vo Minh Thu regarding OpenERP module packaging: http://assertive.io My issue still is: if we have a new addons version at every commit, then for any delta update pip update of the addons it will probably re-download 400+ Mo of all the fresh addons vs a few ko if you were doing a bzr or git pull. Again, not exactly cloud ready... Given the very relative stability of OpenERP, I only have seen success of people doing these delta updates on their projects to fix bugs as they encounter and fix them. Today I don't see this working with assertive yet. I may just be dreaming, but instead I was thinking about something like: for all modules we have git-subtree (no working bzr equivalent!) cron that put every module in a single branch: the module version get incremented only if this particular module receives a commit. Possibly, a translation commit is the z of the x.y.z semver. Then doing pip update would re-download the module only if it received commits, and possibly only if these commits aren't just translation. My two 2 cts. Thanks to all for these input about that essential topic. -- Raphaël Valyi Founder and consultant http://twitter.com/rvalyi <http://twitter.com/#!/rvalyi> +55 21 2516 2954 www.akretion.com
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community Post to : openerp-community@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
