Contributors mailing list archives
Re: Migration to version 9by
My main issue has always been the pain of releasing a module to OCA, plus having own branches from where it originated and so on. Keeping both updated and insync and sometimes having to maintain slight differences (like module name). Or the reverse, taking a module from OCA to make changes that you just know won't be accepted but are needed, and wanting to keep history (actually aeroo reports is an excellent non OCA example of this issue). So for me, now I can hopefully in a couple of days maintain everything I want in single repos, work on what I want where I want and hopefully work out a way to handle the overhead.
> You would be right if we used submodule. Subtree is different and > avoids nearly all of what you have there. At least I think. > You are right, I didn't consider the subtree option. I'm not familiar with git-subtree, so I did some research, but it points that it has it's won issues. For example, it seems that a repo clone becomes a complicated operation (judging from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3202674/procedure-for-cloning-git-repos-that-use-subtree). Anyway, even assuming that my conclusions above are wrong, most of the workflows I described would still be valid: - You would always need the double initial PR. - Even if no "git submodule update && git push" is needed, you would still need an extra step to manually rerun the TravisCI tests for the PR of the topic repo. The burden for contributors, maintainers and repo cloning still increases compared to current situation. I also worry about the zombie repos for abandoned PRs. I have seen someone mention using an "incubator" repo for new modules. While I think that the "incubator" idea has a lot of potential for the community, and have a few ideas to share on that, I'm not sure it's something that should be introduced in our workflow before it is matured. --DR
Post to: mailto:email@example.com