<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 02/11/2012 03:48 AM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:8FF5A0E4-AE69-4F19-87A9-2BEEE70DD78D@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div style="text-align: left; direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>On 10 Feb 2012, at 16:42, Keith Robertson <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:kroberts@redhat.com">kroberts@redhat.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>All,</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>I would like to move some of the oVirt tools into their
own GIT repos so that they are easier to manage/maintain.
In particular, I would like to move the
ovirt-log-collector, ovirt-iso-uploader, and
ovirt-image-uploader each into their own GIT repos.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>The Plan:</span><br>
<span>Step 1: Create naked GIT repos on <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://oVirt.org">oVirt.org</a>
for the 3 tools.</span><br>
<span>Step 2: Link git repos to gerrit.</span><br>
<span>Step 3: Populate naked GIT repos with source and build
standalone spec files for each.</span><br>
<span>Step 4: In one patch do both a) and b)...</span><br>
<span> a) Update oVirt manager GIT repo by removing tool
source.</span><br>
<span> b) Update oVirt manager GIT repo such that spec has
dependencies on 3 new RPMs.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Optional:</span><br>
<span>- These three tools share some python classes that are
very similar. I would like to create a GIT repo (perhaps
ovirt-tools-common) to contain these classes so that a fix
in one place will fix the issue everywhere. Perhaps we can
also create a naked GIT repo for these common classes while
addressing the primary concerns above.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>+1 on the entire suggestion.</div>
<div>about the common stuff- will this package be obsolete once
the tools will be base on the sdk?</div>
</blockquote>
No. The SDK is different it provides a common mechanism for
accessing the REST API. Whereas, the common tools repo is more
geared to the tooling (e.g. common classes for logging, option
parsing, etc.). It would look like this...<br>
<br>
[Common Tools] [REST SDK]<br>
\ /<br>
[image-uploader, iso-uploader, log-collector]<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Keith<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8FF5A0E4-AE69-4F19-87A9-2BEEE70DD78D@redhat.com"
type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span></span><br>
<span>Please comment,</span><br>
<span>Keith Robertson</span><br>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Engine-devel mailing list</span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Engine-devel@ovirt.org">Engine-devel@ovirt.org</a></span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>