[Feedhenry-raincatcher] RainCatcher Monorepo

Peter Darrow pdarrow at redhat.com
Fri Mar 3 14:15:09 UTC 2017 

Summers I think we'll leave the final code at HEAD. I agree while the
project is small and we're iterating quickly that we should keep things
centralized. As far as manual QA of the portal app goes, I think that's a
good idea for a sanity check. And re: blog post, I have no problem writing
that!

Emilio: Great point, I will document the steps required to migrate active
branches—it will probably be manual but pretty straightforward I think.

*Note: I plan on completing this migration today. If you have strong
feelings for or against this, please voice them in the next few hours.*

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Emilio Rodriguez Martinez <
emrodrig at redhat.com> wrote:

> Any idea on how are we going to migrate our unfinished work to the
> monorepo? I think it would be nice to prepare a quick email explaining the
> steps needed to do this as I guess it will be quite a manual process.
>
> Other than that everything looks good to me, I'm really looking forward to
> see this working :)
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Peter Darrow <pdarrow at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> So after chatting with Paolo and Wojciech last week, we decided it
>>> probably makes the most sense to just migrate the migrate the master and
>>> development branches from each repo, and leave the repos up (with
>>> deprecation warnings on them) for any other branches people are working on
>>> or tags we need.
>>>
>>
>> +1, will we leave the final code at HEAD or will we clear it our and
>> leave the code at HEAD~1?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I've pushed up this proposed structure to https://github.com/feedhenr
>>> y-raincatcher/raincatcher. As you can see, development is 220 commits
>>> ahead of master. Does this seem right to you guys? You can see the
>>> comparison here: https://github.com/feedhenry-r
>>> aincatcher/raincatcher/compare/development. Approximately 35 of the
>>> commits are merges I made as a part of the migration, but that still leave
>>> 185 commits ahead which seems like a lot.
>>>
>>>
>> /s/apps/demos or examples?
>>
>> Eventually we may want to break the examples into their own project (ex
>> https://github.com/wildfly-swarm/wildfly-swarm-examples), but right now
>> while the project is small and we are doing a lot of quick development
>> keeping them together makes a lot of sense.
>>
>>
>>> The next steps I propose are:
>>>
>>>    1. Configure travis to build all of the projects in the monorepo (on
>>>    each branch and PR)
>>>    2. Identify and manually migrate any branches that people are
>>>    working on outside of master and development
>>>    3. Choose a day/time to stop development on the individual repos
>>>    (likely late on a Friday)
>>>    4. Run the migration script one last time
>>>    5. Resume regular development on the monorepo
>>>    6. Update script(s) for publishing releases to npm
>>>
>>> Does this seem reasonable to everyone? I was thinking this Friday might
>>> be a good opportunity to switch over, but I'd love to get your feedback.
>>>
>>
>> It seems reasonable, maybe add a run of the portal app in here as well?
>> Also who is going to write the blog post to discuss the migration?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Paolo Haji <phaji at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Along with lerna we can start adding global utils to the top level, so `*npm
>>>> start*` could fire up all demo-apps (with optional task runner and
>>>> through forever/nodemon). If we move to a nice logging library like
>>>> debug <https://github.com/visionmedia/debug> we can have consolidated
>>>> logs and in a filterable form that would be useful for both local dev and
>>>> cluster deployments.
>>>>
>>>> As for tags, I'm not sure it will be of much value keeping their
>>>> history since they'll not be actual tags that show up as GH releases, we
>>>> can keep the old repos around as reference until then.
>>>>
>>>> Our releases as a monorepo would be consolidating all version numbers
>>>> across all modules right? We can start off with a new major c.f. angular
>>>> 4.x
>>>> <http://angularjs.blogspot.com.br/2016/12/ok-let-me-explain-its-going-to-be.html>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Peter Darrow <pdarrow at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wojciech as I mentioned the tool is buggy and really doesn't make a
>>>>> master branch, I think it leaves that up to us. I was mostly looking for
>>>>> feedback on the approach. So is this what you're proposing:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. Move the demo apps into a "apps" subdirectory
>>>>>    2. Move the modules into a "packages" subdirectory
>>>>>    3. Move the documentation into a "docs" subdirectory
>>>>>    4. Combine all branches named "master" from each individual repo
>>>>>    into one master branch
>>>>>    5. Combine all branches named "development" from each individual
>>>>>    repo into one master branch
>>>>>    6. Copy the tags from each individual repo to the monorepo with
>>>>>    the following naming scheme: "<original tag name>-<original repo name>"
>>>>>    7. Ensured the history stays intact.
>>>>>
>>>>> #6 is the one I'm most curious about—how should we attempt to migrate
>>>>> these tags? Or do we not migrate at all as Emilio suggests and just keep
>>>>> the old repos around for resurrecting old tags, etc.?
>>>>>
>>>>> Emilio as far as building and running the apps, https://lernajs.io/
>>>>> should help us with some of this but we may need a small script to help
>>>>> devs run all the apps at once (a slimmed down raincatcher-cli maybe?). Any
>>>>> suggestions there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Wojciech Trocki <wtrocki at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is master :P ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Import seems to be doing something we do not want - creating new
>>>>>> branch for each of the module. Best would be to have only 2 branches for
>>>>>> that mono repo:
>>>>>> - master (containing all modules from master with history)
>>>>>> - development (with all modules from development branch)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having it this way would mean that we would not be able to have every
>>>>>> component on development branch.
>>>>>> If perl is a problem maybe we should use some different tools.
>>>>>> Fastline migration seems to be something we can use:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/fastlane/monorepo/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wojciech Trocki
>>>>>> Red Hat Mobile
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Peter Darrow <pdarrow at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I spent a bunch of time yesterday stitching together our repos into
>>>>>>> a single repo. My goal was to try and identify issues that might make this
>>>>>>> challenging. You can see the results here: https://github.com/feedh
>>>>>>> enry-raincatcher/raincatcher-stitched/. My approach was the
>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    1. Move the demo apps into a "apps" subdirectory
>>>>>>>    2. Move the modules into a "packages" subdirectory
>>>>>>>    3. Move the documentation into a "docs" subdirectory
>>>>>>>    4. Copy the branches from each individual repo to a branch on
>>>>>>>    the monorepo with the following naming scheme: "<original branch
>>>>>>>    name>-<original repo name>".
>>>>>>>    5. Copy the tags from each individual repo to the monorepo with
>>>>>>>    the following naming scheme: "<original tag name>-<original repo name>"
>>>>>>>    6. Ensured the history stays intact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found a tool that promised to implement this exact approach (
>>>>>>> http://search.cpan.org/dist/Git-FastExport/script/git-stitch-repo).
>>>>>>> It's written in Perl and I spent an unreasonable amount of time yesterday
>>>>>>> trying to configure my system to install CPAN modules :/. Eventually I got
>>>>>>> it working, but if you take a look at the stitched repo, it seems to have
>>>>>>> done an incomplete job. I'm not a Perl developer so I don't think it would
>>>>>>> be worth my time to try to contribute a fix, but I think I could implement
>>>>>>> something similar with a bit of effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you guys think—do we need to migrate all of the branches
>>>>>>> from each repo, or just the master from each one? Do we care about the
>>>>>>> history? Is it important to keep every single tag? Let me know what you
>>>>>>> think!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Feedhenry-raincatcher mailing list
>>>>>>> Feedhenry-raincatcher at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-raincatcher
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Feedhenry-raincatcher mailing list
>>>>> Feedhenry-raincatcher at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-raincatcher
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Feedhenry-raincatcher mailing list
>>> Feedhenry-raincatcher at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-raincatcher
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Feedhenry-raincatcher mailing list
>> Feedhenry-raincatcher at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-raincatcher
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-raincatcher/attachments/20170303/3a84f050/attachment.htm>

More information about the Feedhenry-raincatcher mailing list