Open Stack

Hi

I think I remember that a conscious decision was made to avoid using
symlinks for the bundles due to the hell that openstack-mojo-specs
descended into?  Liam may want to wade in on this?

Cheers
Alex.



On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:57 AM Xav Paice <xavpaice at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was writing a patch recently and in order to test it, I needed to make
> changes to the test bundles.  I ended up making the same change across
> several files, and missing one (thanks to the reviewer for noticing that!).
>
> Some of the other projects I'm involved with use symlinks to a base bundle
> with overlays:
>
> ./tests$ ls -l bundles/
> total 20
> -rw-rw---- 2 xav xav 5046 Sep 29 14:56 base.yaml
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 xav xav    9 Sep 29 10:01 bionic.yaml -> base.yaml
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 xav xav    9 Sep 29 10:01 focal.yaml -> base.yaml
> drwxrwx--x 2 xav xav 4096 Sep 29 10:01 overlays
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 xav xav    9 Sep 29 10:01 xenial.yaml -> base.yaml
> ./tests$ ls bundles/overlays/
> bionic.yaml.j2  focal.yaml.j2  local-charm-overlay.yaml.j2  xenial.yaml.j2
>
> This means that I can edit base.yaml just once, and if a change is
> specific to any of the particular bundles there's a place for that in the
> individual overlays.  When we have bundles for each release going back to
> Mitaka, this could be quite an effort saver.
>
> I gather there's been some discussion around this already, and would be
> keen to see if there's a reason folks might avoid that pattern?
>


-- 
Alex Kavanagh - Software Engineer
OpenStack Engineering - Data Centre Development - Canonical Ltd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20201005/bbef4395/attachment.html>