----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest@redhat.com> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@redhat.com> Cc: "infra" <infra@ovirt.org>, "Dave Neary" <dneary@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:01:40 PM Subject: Re: Scripting guidelines
El 21/02/14 00:40, Alon Bar-Lev escribió:
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest@redhat.com> To: "infra" <infra@ovirt.org> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:52:23 PM Subject: Scripting guidelines
Hi everyone!
Lately I've had a hard time to properly review some patches containing shell scripts to manage our infrastructure because there's no guidelines. So I created a wiki page with a proposal [1]. It's made up as a mix of some already existing guidelines.
The reason to wrote a bash style guide and not a shell stile guide is because I think that bash is widely adopted (default GNU shell) and provides enough advantages to sacrifice some portability. I think that most of our maintenance and management scripts will never be run on non-GNU OSes.
POSIX compliance should be only used when really needed, for example, scripts to build a specific project, that might be run on non-GNU based systems in the far future.
This thread is to start a discussion about it so please, share your opinions and concerns (and proposals).
We already discussed that, I think it is wrong for trivial scripts to use bash. No need to discuss that over and over.
The problem is that there is nobody to have authority to decide anything. Open Source is not anarchy nor democracy, there should be strict hierarchy. And we lack that, so anarchy is in action.
From the company you work for, and a pretty old and active participation on open source projects, Dave (cc'd) seems to disagree with your view of open source management:
https://opensource.com/business/11/2/leadership-open-source-communities
""" So how are open source communities led? Largely by the people doing the work. Most groups have a loosely defined common goal (build software widgets, or develop a awesome, open source, computer-based fourth grade math curriculum), and decisions are made by the people doing the work. There's no manager in place dictating edicts about how things must be done or what objectives to seek after. Many people object to this method, call it anarchy, and claim that it impedes progress. It's true that if the same set of people was coerced into a single direction, they might make more progress, but there likely wouldn't be the same level of innovation. """
You forget the at the above statement was constructed before 99% of "community" participants are on single vendor payroll, the implication of that on the free open source movement are yet to be determined, but the direction is quite clear. The fact that there is no specific ethic, does not mean that at every project there is an infrastructure of leadership, name a non vendor controlled project and I will seek it for you.
As for infra, it is not part of anything we distribute so it is not that important, however, standards compliance is something that should be considered.
[1] http://www.ovirt.org/Bash_style_guide
Cheers!
-- David Caro
Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
-- David Caro
Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Email: dcaro@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605