On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Evan Dandrea <[email protected]>wrote:
> We discussed this a bit further on the standup call. I raised the > prospect of having a single source tree for all of the components > under http://launchpad.net/ciengine, and that was quickly and firmly > shot down (I can still see Vincent violently shaking his head in the > back of my mind :-P). Chris and others on the call felt that it would > be .much more manageable and reflective of the structure of component > nature of the project to have separate projects/branches for each > piece. > > When we got to discussing having separately named components, Paul > pointed out that we often won't know the complete shape of what we're > building or prototyping from the outset. He said in past projects they > started with a name that they had to rework over time for this reason. > > So I suggested to the agreement of the call that we just pull from the > top of the codename list whenever we have something to in need of a > temporary name, with the intent of moving to something that actually > conveys what the thing is as that becomes more clear. > I'm a +1, but I want emphasize that we should also try to avoid arbitrarily creating lots of independent projects. We went too far with this approach on LAVA and had way too many lava-* projects. It made things really hard to develop on and hard to install. We had something similar with the daily touch testing early on. It became difficult to make atomic changes that often needed to touch all 3 projects. Chris J wound up having to bite the bullet and consolidate three of our projects.
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
