[Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation

Scott Little scott.little at windriver.com
Tue Jun 19 18:42:11 UTC 2018


I'd like to leave it to Brent to share any documents.  What I have is a 
draft and might not reflect the final intent.  Likewise for creating a 
story, I'd prefer that to our architect team.


On 18-06-19 02:22 PM, Jones, Bruce E wrote:
>
> Cool.  Can we see the document?  Best way would be to create a Story 
> and enter the contents into the Story so we can all see it.
>
>      brucej
>
> *From:*Scott Little [mailto:scott.little at windriver.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:40 AM
> *To:* Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River) <ian.jolliffe at windriver.com>; Jones, 
> Bruce E <bruce.e.jones at intel.com>; Rowsell, Brent (Wind River) 
> <brent.rowsell at windriver.com>; Cordoba Malibran, Erich 
> <erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
> *Cc:* Ambardekar, Pranjal <pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation
>
> Ok, I'll proceed with the reorg per Brent's  'Starlingx_setup_v3.xlxs' 
> document.
>
> I'll do the work piecewise, and leave relocating stx-gplv2/3 content 
> till last.  So there is still some time for discussion.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 18-06-19 10:04 AM, Jolliffe, Ian wrote:
>
>     Hi Bruce;
>
>     Thanks for your flexibility – we will proceed with consolidation.
>      The fewer repos the better, it will be one place to monitor and
>     retire these changes. Maybe there are some ways to make the tool
>     work for us – instead of the other way around.  Let’s discuss on IRC.
>
>     Regards;
>
>     Ian
>
>     *From: *"Jones, Bruce E" <bruce.e.jones at intel.com>
>     <mailto:bruce.e.jones at intel.com>
>     *Date: *Monday, June 18, 2018 at 5:40 PM
>     *To: *Brent Rowsell <Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>
>     <mailto:Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>, "CORDOBA MALIBRAN, ERICH"
>     <erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com>
>     <mailto:erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com>,
>     "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io"
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>     <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>     *Cc: *"AMBARDEKAR, PRANJAL" <pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>
>     <mailto:pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation
>
>     I met with Pranjal and Abraham today to discuss this.
>
>     The problem is that we separated that code out for a reason.  We
>     have an internal requirement to run a license scanning tool, and
>     the tool assumes that all of the code within a single git repo is
>     covered by the same license.  If you have files covered under
>     multiple licenses, it reports errors.
>
>     It’s rather silly that we’re letting a tool dictate something like
>     this.
>
>     We are setting up a process to run that tool on a regular basis,
>     so when it comes time to do a release, we don’t run into issues
>     that we didn’t already know about.
>
>     It would not be the end of the world if someone submitted and
>     approved a PR to merge those repos.    It would make mine,
>     Abraham’s and Pranjal’s lives easier if we did not.  If you think
>     that this would make things better for everyone else, I would
>     withdraw my objection.
>
>     Meanwhile, our goal is to get rid of those repos, long term.
>
>          Brucej
>
>     *From:* Rowsell, Brent [mailto:Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:00 PM
>     *To:* Cordoba Malibran, Erich <erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com>
>     <mailto:erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com>; Jones, Bruce E
>     <bruce.e.jones at intel.com> <mailto:bruce.e.jones at intel.com>;
>     starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>     *Cc:* Ambardekar, Pranjal <pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>
>     <mailto:pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>
>     *Subject:* RE: [Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation
>
>     The objective over time is to eliminate the changes to these open
>     source packages by upstreaming the changes.
>
>     Given that, I don’t think we want the overhead of
>     creating/managing 250 repos. This project already has 50 repos.
>
>     Currently we have these packages spread over 4 repos with no real
>     functional division.
>
>     I am proposing it would make more sense to consolidate into one.
>      One repo to manage, making it easier to track the retirement of
>     customizations over time.
>
>     Brent
>
>     *From:* Cordoba Malibran, Erich
>     [mailto:erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:43 PM
>     *To:* Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com
>     <mailto:Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>>; JONES, BRUCE
>     <bruce.e.jones at intel.com <mailto:bruce.e.jones at intel.com>>;
>     starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>     *Cc:* AMBARDEKAR, PRANJAL <pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com
>     <mailto:pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation
>
>     This was a convenience separation. The license checking tool
>     expects to have a repository per project and a main license
>     defined for the entire repository. In this case, we wanted to
>     release the project as Apache License 2.0 and the tool assumes
>     that all the code inside the repository should has friendly
>     licenses. However, the tool found some conflicting components and
>     to solve the issue we move out those into the gplv2/3 repositories.
>
>     This doesn’t mean that were actual license conflicts, it means
>     that this use case was outside of the scope of the tool.
>
>     I would like to discuss the advantage of consolidation vs split,
>     I’m wondering if a model like CentOS has could help us, they have
>     a repository for each component. This will lead us to have around
>     250 repositories (CentOS manages around 600) but I think that
>     managing each of them would be more easy.
>
>     -Erich
>
>     *From: *"Rowsell, Brent" <Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com
>     <mailto:Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:48 PM
>     *To: *"Jones, Bruce E" <bruce.e.jones at intel.com
>     <mailto:bruce.e.jones at intel.com>>,
>     "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>"
>     <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>>
>     *Cc: *"Ambardekar, Pranjal" <pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com
>     <mailto:pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation
>
>     I don’t understand the distinction. There is already gpl code in
>     stx_integ.
>
>     Brent
>
>     *From:* Jones, Bruce E [mailto:bruce.e.jones at intel.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:29 PM
>     *To:* Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com
>     <mailto:Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>>;
>     starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>     *Cc:* AMBARDEKAR, PRANJAL <pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com
>     <mailto:pranjal.ambardekar at intel.com>>
>     *Subject:* RE: [Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation
>
>     Objection. We separated those out to comply with software license
>     checking tools that we will still need to run.
>
>     Pranjal and Abraham are the subject matter experts here.  If there
>     is a way to pass the code scanning tools and still combine these,
>     I would not object at all.
>
>     brucej
>
>     *From:* Rowsell, Brent [mailto:Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:22 AM
>     *To:* starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>     <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>     *Subject:* [Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation
>
>     I would like to propose that the following repo’s be consolidated
>     under stx-integ.
>
>       * stx-gplv2
>       * stx-gplv3
>       * stx-upstream
>
>     Any objections/comments ?
>
>     Brent
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Starlingx-discuss mailing list
>
>     Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>     <mailto:Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>
>     http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20180619/54b40efd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Starlingx-discuss mailing list