[openib-general] userspace git trees

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

> > > > > Recently I found this OFA 'Userspace Git Trees' downloading howto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://openib.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Downloading+Code+From+the+OFA+git+Repositories
> > > > > 
> > > > > and thought that we could make it simpler for end-user to choose the
> > > > > "right" git tree just by adding one more series of symbolic links under
> > > > > /pub/scm. This links will point to the maintainer's "official" trees, and
> > > > > we will have only one such link per project.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So typical downloading howto for end-users will looks like:
> > > > > 
> > > > >   git clone git://staging.openfabrics.org/dapl
> > > > >   git clone git://staging.openfabrics.org/ibutils
> > > > >   git clone git://staging.openfabrics.org/imgen
> > > > >   ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > instead of
> > > > > 
> > > > >   git clone git://staging.openfabrics.org/~ardavis/dapl
> > > > >   git clone git://staging.openfabrics.org/~eitan/ibutils
> > > > >   git clone git://staging.openfabrics.org/~mst/imgen
> > > > >   ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > as it is now.
> > > > 
> > > > NACK, please remove this. These soft links are messy, and
> > > > the fact that one needs root just to add a tree shows just how the approach
> > > > is broken.
> > > 
> > > No, it is not instead, but in addition to ~user/ links, so root is _not_
> > > required to add tree.
> > 
> > right but suddenly root is needed to make it "official".
> > Let's avoid the whole policy-setting-by-softlinks.
> > "I have root" should not equal, or be required for "I say what's official".
> 
> What are you trying to avoid? That only sysadmin will decide which git
> tree will be "official" for OFED and which will not?

Yes. Another point is that I should not need sysadmin priviledges to create
a new project and declare my tree the official source.

But not only that - staging is used to develop more than just OFED.  Read
the rant part in the original mail if you like for more detail - development
trees should all be equal. Only releases should be official.  And release has an
immutable name, so it does not *matter* which tree you get it from.

> > 
> > > > If you have some temporary tree, just mention this in description,
> > > 
> > > And when it is not temporary tree?
> > 
> > Say what it is in the description.
> > Put a link in wiki.
> > 
> > > > and gitweb will show this. And won't the problem basically go away
> > > > if you move ~sashak temporary trees out of ~/scm?
> > > 
> > > For me it is unclear yet how long we may need this - 1.1 still be in
> > > SVN yet, and 1.1 git branch is updated there.
> > 
> > So ~sashak/scm things track the 1.1 branch in git?
> 
> All active SVN branches.

But there *shouldn't* be any active SVN branches now besides the 1.1 branch.
So the rest can be killed off.

> > Move it to ~sashak/scm/ofed-1.1 then, and set the description accordingly?
> > 
> > > > It seems we don't
> > > > have a lot of duplicates besides that.
> > > 
> > > But we will have - we are running git hosting only week or so and already
> > > talking about pre-trunk trees for some projects. :)
> > 
> > These should be branches, not separate trees.
> 
> Why not?

You seem to have a fear of branches :). Many trees do not buy you anything,
I tried this with ofed 1.1 in the beginning.

You can have many trees. But a single project maintained by a single person
belongs in a single public tree, scattering it around between multiple trees
just makes it messy for people to track, and messy to figure out the delta
between branches. Finally, it wastes space.

-- 
MST