Open Stack

On 08/08/2013 06:49 AM, 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.

Yep, and that's pretty much where this conversation always lands.
oslo.config is already a nice library.  oslo.messaging is well on its
way.  I'm pretty sure Mark would welcome more help on Oslo to help push
forward on other parts.  :-)  I think all the right things are being
done here.

-- 
Russell Bryant