This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000804070007050707040803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 02/11/2012 03:48 AM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
On 10 Feb 2012, at 16:42, Keith Robertson <kroberts@redhat.com <mailto:kroberts@redhat.com>> wrote:
All,
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.
The Plan: Step 1: Create naked GIT repos on oVirt.org <http://oVirt.org> for the 3 tools. Step 2: Link git repos to gerrit. Step 3: Populate naked GIT repos with source and build standalone spec files for each. Step 4: In one patch do both a) and b)... a) Update oVirt manager GIT repo by removing tool source. b) Update oVirt manager GIT repo such that spec has dependencies on 3 new RPMs.
Optional: - 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.
+1 on the entire suggestion. about the common stuff- will this package be obsolete once the tools will be base on the sdk?
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... [Common Tools] [REST SDK] \ / [image-uploader, iso-uploader, log-collector] Cheers, Keith
Please comment, Keith Robertson _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Engine-devel@ovirt.org> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
--------------000804070007050707040803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <!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> --------------000804070007050707040803--