[Starlingx-discuss] Repo consolidation

Tue Jun 19 14:40:01 UTC 2018

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>
> *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlingx-discuss mailing list
> 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/b66400d1/attachment-0001.html>