[Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation

[Jolliffe, Ian]

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>
Date: Monday, June 18, 2018 at 5:40 PM
To: Brent Rowsell <Brent.Rowsell at windriver.com>, "CORDOBA MALIBRAN, ERICH" <erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com>, "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io" <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Cc: "AMBARDEKAR, PRANJAL" <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>; Jones, Bruce E <bruce.e.jones at intel.com>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
Cc: Ambardekar, Pranjal <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20180619/d54635da/attachment-0001.html>