Re: [Engine-devel] New oVirt GIT Repo Request

On 02/13/2012 07:31 AM, Barak Azulay wrote: > On 02/12/2012 03:32 PM, Keith Robertson wrote: >> On 02/11/2012 05:41 PM, Itamar Heim wrote: >>> On 02/10/2012 04:42 PM, Keith Robertson 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 for the 3 tools. >>>> Step 2: Link git repos to gerrit. >>> >>> above two are same step - create a project in gerrit. >>> I'll do that if list doesn't have any objections by monday. >> Sure, np. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> would this hold both python and java common code? >> >> None of the 3 tools currently have any requirement for Java code, but I >> think the installer does. That said, I wouldn't have a problem mixing >> Java code in the "common" component as long as they're in separate >> package directories. >> >> If we do something like this do we want a "python" common RPM and a >> "java" common RPM or just a single RPM for all common code? I don't >> really have a preference. > > I would go with separating the java common and python common, even if > it's just to ease build/release issues. > +1 and if needed one package be required to the other.