Open Stack

On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 14:32 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> 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?

I think a lot of it is covered on the wiki page, but feel free to add a
new entry to:

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo#FAQs

Mark.