On 19 September 2014 17:28, Jacob, Jerin <[email protected]> wrote:
> How about git "submodules", A master git odp repo and platforms specific > sub repos within it.Best of both worlds. > > http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Submodules > > A lot of the different SoC implementations will never be submodules > though, only the public ones will be making a difference for users. > IMHO upstream ODP should just be the reference, which is then just the docs > (some examples), the unit tests and linux-generic which is obviously also > the important part because it is the API reference which is the part that > really matters. > After chatting a bit just now I even agree that netmap should be its own > repo following the "all implementations have their own repo" model. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > on behalf of Mike Holmes <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:40 AM > *To:* Taras Kondratiuk > *Cc:* ext Magnus Karlsson; Hillo, Jarmo (NSN - FI/Espoo); > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [lng-odp] Relaxing merge process > > My 2 cents > > Repos: > > - A private SoCs implementation such as Axxia, Cavium, Freescale are > already separate repos, why should public ones be different ? > - When you pull you only get the implementation you want, you don't > get others for "free" i.e. if I want KS2 and I don't care about DPDK I > don't get DPDK > > Branch: > > - All in one place for public variants - more open source, but ODP is > not pure open source, a lot of members never will be. > > > I think the strongest argument is for keeping it all working the same > way so I vote for separate repos > > So a 1.0 is called for when linux-generic meets these requirements > - The API feature set has been agreed by SC <- by necessity all > platforms who are Members of ODP get to define this > > I suspect this step will ensure the API is acceptable to all, even if > not complete on all platforms (as we just experienced with crypto) > - The doxygen documentation is complete > - The unit tests all pass > - The code builds for all variants of linux-generic, currently the only > variant is netmap > > Then DPDK, KS2, Axxia, Octeon all catch up when they also pass those > same test criteria. > > > On 19 September 2014 16:29, Taras Kondratiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Yes something like this. >> >> On 09/19/2014 12:07 PM, Mike Holmes wrote: >> > As repos, something like this ? >> > >> > On 19 September 2014 14:55, Taras Kondratiuk >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> > >> > Both approaches have pros and cons. >> > I prefer branches, so all open implementations can be found in one >> > upstream place. I hope there will be more open implementations in >> > future :) >> > >> > The main point we should keep in mind is that linux-generic (master >> > branch) won't be completely independent from other implementations >> even >> > if they are in a separate repositories (private or public). At >> release >> > points several implementations should be at the same API level to >> prove >> > that API can be implemented. So we can't just tag v1.0 on master >> branch >> > when linux-generic is ready. >> > As an option these parts can be in a separate repositories, but get >> > pulled into release branches which forked from master branch. >> > >> > On 09/19/2014 11:31 AM, Hillo, Jarmo (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> > > Agree that separate repos make more sense than branches. Jarmo >> > > >> > > >> > > Sent from Samsung Mobile >> > > >> > > >> > > -------- Alkuperäinen viesti -------- >> > > Lähettäjä: ext Magnus Karlsson >> > > Päivämäärä:19.09.2014 10.25 (GMT-08:00) >> > > Saaja: Taras Kondratiuk >> > > Kopio: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > Aihe: Re: [lng-odp] Relaxing merge process >> > > >> > > Taras, >> > > >> > > Sounds good as long as we substitute the word branches with >> > > repositories. Branches do not make much sense IMHO. >> > > >> > > Magnus >> > > >> > > Den 19 sep 2014 09:40 skrev "Taras Kondratiuk" >> > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>>>: >> > > >> > > I'd like to sum up our yesterday's discussion about making >> merge >> > > process more >> > > relaxed. Current process with a single master branch assumes >> that >> > > each patch >> > > need to keep all platforms in a working state, which is next >> to >> > > impossible, >> > > because patch author doesn't have enough expertise in all >> > platforms. >> > > The same >> > > happens with a complex examples. This leads to a significant >> slow >> > > down of new >> > > API sets development. >> > > >> > > The idea we came up with is to split the master branch into >> > several >> > > branches: >> > > - master: contains core LNG deliverables: linux-generic, >> tests and >> > > simple >> > > examples >> > > - implementation branches (linux-keystone2, linux-dpdk, etc): >> > > contains one >> > > implementation >> > > - examples: contains complex examples like IPSec. >> > > >> > > Each branch has its maintainer. >> > > At release point when linux-generic has everything for >> release we >> > > fork a release >> > > branch (odp-v1.0) from master. Other branches get pulled into >> > > release branch >> > > when branch maintainer have updated it to the same API level >> as >> > > linux-generic in >> > > release branch. >> > > >> > > This approach allows to unblock and speed up linux-generic >> > development. >> > > As before patches to any branch should go through ML review >> > process. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Taras Kondratiuk >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > lng-odp mailing list >> > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] >> >> >> > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> > > >> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> it, >> > > send an email to [email protected] <mailto: >> lng-sc%[email protected]> >> > > <mailto:lng-sc%[email protected] >> > <mailto:lng-sc%[email protected]>>. >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Taras Kondratiuk >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > lng-odp mailing list >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > *Mike Holmes* >> > Linaro Technical Manager / Lead >> > LNG - ODP >> >> >> -- >> Taras Kondratiuk >> > > > > -- > *Mike Holmes* > Linaro Technical Manager / Lead > LNG - ODP > -- *Mike Holmes* Linaro Technical Manager / Lead LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
