[almighty] Monorepo

[Thomas Mäder]

Sabotaging my own argument....

On 09/22/2016 01:15 PM, Konrad Kleine wrote:
> but I from an operations point of view it would be nice to know that 
> the docker image for core with revision X works fine.
That is true now, but as soon as we have an extension that we don't 
build ourselves (in an open system, that could happen), that breaks down 
anyway.

> With a monorepo (and I think this is what KB mentioned on Bluejeans) 
> we would need to rebuild the docker image for core every time someone 
> makes a ui change. This leads to a docker image for core with revision 
> X+1. Hence, we would need to roll out a new image even if nothing has 
> changed.
Not necessarily. If nothing has changed in core, we can detect that and 
not trigger a rebuild of the docker image. If we are using the commit 
hash as a build identifier, that is simply an implementation detail.
>
> I find that not only a waste of energy but a cause for problems. Just 
> consider the amount of time we spend for useless roll outs of the 
> exact same binary only built at different times!
I don't spend any time on this, roll outs are fully automated ;-)

/Thomas