Open Stack

On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 11:50 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 26/11/13 22:54 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 12:39 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >    1) Store the commit sha from which the module was copied from.
> >> >    Every project using oslo, currently keeps the list of modules it
> >> >    is using in `openstack-modules.conf` in a `module` parameter. We
> >> >    could store, along with the module name, the sha of the commit it
> >> >    was last synced from:
> >> >
> >> >        module=log,commit
> >> >
> >> >        or
> >> >
> >> >        module=log
> >> >        log=commit
> >> >
> >>
> >> The second form will be easier to manage. Humans edit the module field and
> >> the script will edit the others.
> >
> >How about adding it as a comment at the end of the python files
> >themselves and leaving openstack-common.conf for human editing?
> 
> I think having the commit sha will give us a starting point from which
> we could start updating that module from. 

Sure, my only point was about where the commit sha comes from - i.e.
whether it's from a comment at the end of the python module itself or in
openstack-common.conf

> It will mostly help with
> getting a diff for that module and the short commit messages where it
> was modified.
> 
> Here's a pseudo-buggy-algorithm for the update process:
> 
>     (1) Get current sha for $module
>     (2) Get list of new commits for $module
>     (3) for each commit of $module:
>         (3.1) for each modified_module in $commit
>             (3.1.1) Update those modules up to $commit (1)(modified_module)
>         (3.2) Copy the new file
>         (3.3) Update openstack-common with the latest sha
> 
> This trusts the granularity and isolation of the patches proposed in
> oslo-incubator. However, in cases like 'remove vim mode lines' it'll
> fail assuming that updating every module is necessary - which is true
> from a git stand point.

This is another variant of the kind of inter-module dependency smarts
that update.py already has ... I'd be inclined to just omit those smarts
and just require the caller to explicitly list the modules they want to
include.

Maybe update.py could include some reporting to help with that choice
like "module foo depends on modules bar and blaa, maybe you want to
include them too" and "commit XXX modified module foo, but also module
bar and blaa, maybe you want to include them too".

Mark.