[Rdo-list] OPM downstream patches

[Gilles Dubreuil]

On 19/01/16 01:09, Ivan Chavero wrote:
> 
>> I think we would gain of having each Openstack Puppet module to extend
>> its current branch structure in a 'distro sub-branch' way, such as:
>>
>>   master
>>     + +
>>     | |
>>     | +--> RDO9 +--> OSP9
>>     |
>> back|port
>>     |
>>     +--> stable/liberty +--> RDO8 +--> OSP8
>>     |
>>     |
>>     +--> stable/kilo +--> RDO7 +--> OSP7
> 
> This should be done already for the official OpenStack puppet modules
> 

Really, I wish. Do you have any pointer?


>>
>>
>> The structural complexity could be reduced by benefiting from limiting
>> forks, as describe above, using branch for each related Openstack distro
>> (RDO/OSP/etc). If this is not possible then each Opentack installer has
>> to fork every Openstack modules it needs.
>>
>> For, the non Openstack puppet modules, because there isn't any link to
>> Openstack branches. A correspond fork has to be created.
>>
>> Hence, a solution #3:
>>
>> - For each installer
>>  - Create a meta/wrapper package
>>  - For each required/desired Openstack Puppet module
>>    - If no 'distro sub-branches' available
>>      - Module's source repo is forked
>>      - Openstack equivalent branches structure are created
>>    - A RPM package is created
>>      - Non Puppet patches are applied if needed
>>    - Add module to list of meta/wrapper package
>>  - For each required/desired non Openstack Puppet module
>>    - Module's source repo is forked
>>    - Openstack equivalent branches structure are created
>>    - Puppet patches are applied in correspond branch if needed
>>    - A RPM package is created
>>      - Non Puppet patches are applied if needed
>>    - Add module to list of meta/wrapper package
> 
> 
> There should be only one OPM package and the installers should be modified
> to work with it. To maintain an OPM package for earch installer would be
> a burden for the installer developers  and could generate confusion for the
> people that uses only OPM without any installer.
> Also, taking in account that every eight months or so there are  new 
> iniciative to create a new installer we will end up maintaining a slightly
> different OPM package for who knows how many installers we will end up with
> 
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>