1. Mailing Lists
  2. Contributors
  3. Re: Migration to version 9

Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Browse archives

Re: Renaming OCA/project-service to OCA/vertical-service

Re: Renaming OCA/project-service to OCA/vertical-service

Avatar

Re: Migration to version 9

by
MoaHub, Graeme Gellatly
- 28/08/2015 00:27:45
Guys,

Another option that I thought of for unported is possibly to have like a 9.0-unstable or something (v8.9).  I don't know exactly what I mean but a stepping stone between 8.0 and 9.0 branch.  Then we could have a flow of unported's not just at release time.  It is often not the case that a version 8 user who releases a module is interested in porting to v9 immediately.  That way developers know where to look for prior work, and users aren't confused.  I don't know, maybe.

Also I been going through this git subtree this morning, just a little test.  For me it does exactly what I want and is simple, basically I can take all OCA repositories, split them into their own and recombine how I like in a few minutes, but the technical issues for OCA I don't think are worth the effort resolving until we really decide to go down a proper versioning path.  It is basically an individual developer tool.  Playing nicely with the way github teams works looks problematic. 

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.

Daniel,

That stack-overflow is referring to the contrib module git-subtree which attempts to implement git subtrees.  It is known to have a lot of quirks.  As for that particular issue, git-stree resolves it by maintaining .gitconfig, which brings me back to my primary issue which is that it really doesn't scale for multiple maintainer collaboration easy.  But I am no git expert, just happy I found a way to handle my own workflow.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Daniel Reis <dgreis@sapo.pt> wrote:
> 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

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: http://odoo-community.org/groups/oca-contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: http://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe


Reference