Open Stack

On Aug 16, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:

> On 16 August 2013 20:15, Maru Newby <marun at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>>> This pattern has one slight issue, which is:
>>> 
>>>      • Do not assume the reviewer has access to external web services/site.
>>> In 6 months time when someone is on a train/plane/coach/beach/pub troubleshooting a problem & browsing GIT history, there is no guarantee they will have access to the online bug tracker, or online blueprint documents. The great step forward with distributed SCM is that you no longer need to be "online" to have access to all information about the code repository. The commit message should be totally self-contained, to maintain that benefit.
>> 
>> I'm not sure I agree with this.  It can't be true in all cases, so it can hardly be considered a rule.  A guideline, maybe - something to strive for.  But not all artifacts of the development process are amenable to being stuffed into code or the commits associated with them.  A dvcs is great and all, but unless one is working in a silo, online resources are all but mandatory.
> 
> In a very strict sense you're right, but consider that for anyone
> doing fast iterative development the need to go hit a website is a
> huge slowdown : at least in most of the world :).

You're suggesting that it's possible to do _fast_ iterative development on a distributed system of immense and largely undocumented complexity (like openstack)?  I'd like to be working on the code you're working on!  ;) 


m.

> 
> So - while I agree that it's something to strive for, I think we
> should invert it and say 'not having everything in the repo is
> something we should permit occasional exceptions to'.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> -- 
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev