[Container-tools] [atomic-devel] Nulecule Validator repo on GitHub

[Aaron Weitekamp]

If there a validator bugfix needed I think we could support a new release of the nulecule repository without bumping the version of the spec itself. I'm not exactly clear how we're doing releases but I think this is supported in this proposal: https://github.com/projectatomic/nulecule/pull/63

----- Original Message -----
> Fixes for bugs in the validator. I'm for quick upstream bugfix releases
> instead of hoarding patches downstream and waiting weeks for a new
> release. Would we issue new releases for the spec every time a bugfix
> release for the validator is issued?
> 
> Tomas
> 
> On 20/05/15 12:20, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> > Is there a reason why not to tie the release schedule for validator to
> > release schedule for the spec? I think those two are tightly coupled
> > things and we already do releases by tags for specification.
> >
> > Vašek
> >
> > On 20.5.2015 12:10, Tomas Radej wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> How will releases be managed? If you put the validator into a
> >> directory in projectatomic/nulecule, you effectively can't tag commits
> >> as it will create a mess (tagging validator vs tagging all the rest of
> >> the repo). If you don't tag, how do you specify a hard point in time
> >> when release is made? I understand why you'd want to use e. g. a git
> >> commit hash for prerelease software, but the validator should be
> >> properly released once it's stable enough. Hunting down commits when
> >> debugging is a nightmare.
> >>
> >> Regards, Tomas
> >>
> >> On 20/05/15 09:57, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to see this living inside the spec repo. As long as it is only
> >>> able to validate Nulecule files and has "nulecule" in the name, I don't
> >>> think it makes much sense to maintain it separately. I agree with you it
> >>> does not make sense to merge it with atomicapp although we should figure
> >>> out a way how to utilize it there.
> >>>
> >>> I am also CC'ing container-tools ML where most of the nulecule related
> >>> discussion happens.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Vašek
> >>>
> >>> On 19.5.2015 17:23, Tomas Radej wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have made a validator library/executable for Nulecule files [1], and
> >>>> I'd like to transfer it to the Project Atomic organisation on GitHub.
> >>>> There has been some discussion about where it should go, if it should
> >>>> be merged with the main spec repo [2] or the atomicapp [3], or
> >>>> something completely different. Mind you that this lib is just a
> >>>> syntactic validator, not a linter, so it has can't understand the
> >>>> files beyond simple checking against a schema.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that the nulecule_validator repo should stay as a stand-alone
> >>>> repository with its own releases and lifecycle. The reason is that it
> >>>> can be easily used on its own. It only needs the schemata from the
> >>>> main spec repo, nothing else, and these schemata can be linked to it
> >>>> via git submodule or subtree.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it was merged with atomicapp, every user wanting to validate their
> >>>> file on any machine would need all dependencies of the atomicapp
> >>>> installed (Docker?). A typical case would be a user developing a
> >>>> Nulecule app with DevAssistant on one (bare metal) machine and
> >>>> deploying on another (virtual one?). In addition to that, the
> >>>> validator wouldn't be much use to alternative implementations of the
> >>>> Nulecule spec either.
> >>>>
> >>>> Questions, comments, suggestions?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, Tomas Radej
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://github.com/tradej/nulecule_validator
> >>>> [2] https://github.com/projectatomic/nulecule
> >>>> [3] https://github.com/projectatomic/atomicapp
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Container-tools mailing list
> Container-tools at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools
>