On 16.12.2015 09:53, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> On 16.12.2015 09:45, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> On 11.12.2015 15:50, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On 10.12.2015 18:04, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>> On 9.12.2015 15:30, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> this patch automates some of sanity checks proposed by Petr Vobornik.
>>>>> 'make review' should be used in root of clean Git tree which has patches
>>>>> under
>>>>> review applied.
>>>>> Magic in review.sh attempts to detect nearest remote branch which can be
>>>>> used
>>>>> as diff base for review. Please see review.sh for further details.
>>>> And here is the patch! :-)
>>> Nice, but I would rather see this in ipatool
>>> (<https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa-tools>). Or is there any obvious 
>>> benefit
>>> in having this in freeipa itself that I'm missing?
>> For me the obvious benefit is:
>> git clone
>> git am
>> make review
>> Done.
>> No need to find & learn other tool, no risk of using wrong version of the 
>> tool
>> to wrong version of source tree etc.
> AFAIK all IPA developers are supposed to use ipatool, and it already has a

Good to know. How does a newcomer learn about it? Honestly I never used
ipatool (or not even cloned it).

> start-review command, so it would better fit in there. Or we could merge
> freeipa-tools into freeipa. My point is that I don't think having half of the
> stuff in ipatool and the other half in IPA itself is a good thing to do.

I agree with this in general.

Would it make sense to at least have review target for make which executes
ipa-tool and if it is not installed it tells you where to grab it?

Or possibly make ipatool submodule of ipa git tree, so there is no risk of
using wrong review tool for particular checkout?

Petr^2 Spacek

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to