[Pulp-list] [devel] Create a `devel` repository for Pulp

[Michael Hrivnak]

On naming, I have a slight preference toward keeping the pulp_ prefix
convention, but that might just be rooted in habit. My general feeling is
that the name of a git repo should stand on its own, and the fact that it
may be present on github within a particular user or organization's
namespace does not displace the value of the name itself being fully
descriptive.

If I fork pulp/contrib, I end up with mhrivnak/contrib. Yes, the list of my
repos will show that is was forked from pulp/contrib, but it still seems
weird. I have to go to github to see that. If someone forked it from me,
now the original name's context is hard to find.

Even when I merely clone it, I'd get a local directory named "contrib".
Perhaps others already organize their local git clones by organization, but
I've always just had a flat directory of stuff that's been cloned from all
over, because the repo names are usually fully descriptive.

As an example, check out how many Fedora repos start with the word
"fedora": https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/?ofs=300

All of that said, it's not a big deal, and I'm happy to adjust my thinking
if a lot of folks think of it differently. How about it?

Michael

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Sean Myers <sean.myers at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06/20/2016 01:49 PM, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Currently, we have development-related files and packages spread out
> > across our Git repositories on GitHub. It would be nice if it was all
> > part of one repository for developers. This would include things like:
> >
> >  * The Vagrantfile currently in pulp/pulp
> >  * The devel Python packages currently in each repo
> >  * Release engineering tooling currently in pulp/pulp
> >  * Jenkins jobs definitions currently in pulp/pulp_packaging
> >  * Ansible playbooks currently in pulp/pulp and pulp/pulp_packaging
> >  * Various tools and scripts living in "playpens"
> >
> > It might also be worth breaking out our Ansible roles into their own
> > `ansible` repository. Right now we have _two_ sets of Ansible roles
> > (one in pulp/pulp and on in pulp/pulp_packaging).
> >
> > What do you all think?
>
> Yes. I'm also happy to see the ansible books live in devel since they're
> primarly
> used by vagrant and CI, which would both live in devel, and you can't do
> either
> without one or the ansible playbooks.
>
> +1 for 'devel' and not 'pulp_devel', I still sometimes think that we have a
> 'packaging' plugin because of the 'pulp_packaging' repo name.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20160624/f8eb3c0b/attachment.htm>