Open Stack

On 08/08/13 11:49 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 11:39:44AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> What do you mean by "dangerous code merging" in the subject? The body of
>> your mail doesn't make any reference to whatever "danger" you're seeing.
>>
>> On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 14:16 +0400, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > Could somebody answer me, why we are merging oslo code in other projects
>> > and don't use
>> > git submodules (http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Submodules)
>>
>> The idea of using submodules has come a few times. I don't have a
>> fundamental objection to it, except any time I've seen submodules used
>> in a project they've been extremely painful for everyone involved.
>>
>> I'd be happy to look at a demo of a submodule based system for projects
>> to use code from oslo-incubator.
>
>submodules certainly could work as a way to avoid the cut+paste
>approach we currently do. I agree though that they do add an
>extra layer of pain & suffering for developers who don't fully
>understand what they're doing. We use them in libvirt and try
>to hide the pain behind clever scripts which attempt to keep
>the submodule properly synced, but we still get pretty frequent
>problem reports from devs who've managed to get themselves into
>a mess with the submodule state.
>
>If we want to improve our interaction with oslo then IMHO more
>effort should be spent on turning bits of oslo-incubator into
>stable, standalone modules, removing the cut+paste need entirely.
>

+1

It is always good to refresh the WHYs of the approach we're using but,
would it make sense to have a F.A.Q on Oslo's wiki explaining some of
the recurrent questions?

Cheers,
FF

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco