[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