On 10/14/2011 02:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 10/14/2011 09:46 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 14 2011, John Dickinson wrote: >> >>> But it's metadata about the code (a particular review pattern with a >>> particular vcs). VCS info does not belong in the code. I'll admit that I >>> like a dotfile in the repo much better than I like rfc.sh in the >>> repo, but >>> I'd prefer to keep info about remotes, review processes, and other repo >>> metadata out of the repo. If this is something for a particular VCS >>> (as the >>> proposed git-review is), it should use the established locations for >>> that >>> particular VCS. In this case, git-review should pull info from the .git >>> directory (more specifically, the git config data). >> >> I understand your statement, but I don't think it is the good thing to >> fight for this. You can consider that .gitignore is VCS metadata too. >> But it exists everywhere. >> >> Every file is a file particular to a tool used in a project, being >> Python, a Makefile, or a Git file. :) >> > > At least as far as the generic tool is concerned, how about support > both? As an example, check out these docs for post-review from the > reviewboard project: > > http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/ > > The equivalent information can either be stored in a dot file or in git > config. Since obviously there are differing opinions, it would be nice > to provide both. Supporting both also provides a convenient way to be > able to locally override the default that is committed into the repository.
++ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
