[Rdo-list] OPM downstream patches
gcerami at redhat.com
Fri Jan 15 18:26:34 UTC 2016
On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 15:30 +1100, Gilles Dubreuil wrote:
thanks for the historical background, it was enlightening.
> The structural complexity could be reduced by benefiting from
> forks, as describe above, using branch for each related Openstack
> (RDO/OSP/etc). If this is not possible then each Opentack installer
> to fork every Openstack modules it needs.
Why are forks so bad ?
Do not resist the fork. Embrace it.
I'll try to clarify some of the choices in the current OPM CI.
We forked every modules because we needed a place to put the patches
for that module, and the result of the merge with the main branch.
The fork is not static, rdo-puppet-modules/puppet-nova/master is kept
in sync with openstack/puppet-nova/master constantly and automatically,
and master equivalent on rdo-puppet-modules/puppet-nova is kept really
just as a cursor to mark the point where we have tested upstream
changes with our patches.
We could as well use master-patches from midstream and master from
upstream to make the final merge, not touching midstream master at all.
So do not consider forks a problem, since their maintenance burden is
quite lifted at the moment, at least for OPM.
Regarding the naming issues, the OPMCI scripts are pretty flexible, we
should be able to change the naming scheme with minimal efforts, and
the scripts are already supporting branch mappings (master in upstream
can be tracked as stable/liberty in midstream for example)
Use the fork!
More information about the rdo-list