[Pacemaker] Re: [Cluster-devel] [RFC] Splitting cluster.git into separate projects/trees

Christine Caulfield ccaulfie at redhat.com
Fri Nov 14 04:33:48 EST 2008

Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> as discussed and agreed at the Cluster Summit we need to split our tree
> to make life easier in the long run (etc. etc.).
> We need to decide how we want to do it and there are different
> approaches to that. I was able to think of 3. There might be more and I
> might not have taken everything into consideration so comments and ideas
> are welcome.
> At this point we haven't really settled how many (sub) project will be
> created out of this split. This will come once we agree how to split.
> = first approach =
> We maintain cluster.git as single entity with all source code in one
> place. We change the build system in such a way each single component
> can be released standalone (similar to how it was done in the RHEL*
> branches).
> Pro:
>  - preserve current development model.
>  - allow release of separate tarball for each (sub) project.
>  - external users don't need to build the whole tree for one (sub)
> project.
> Cons:
>  - move all the burden to the build system (by duplicating tons of
> stuff, maybe solvable but needs investigation) and release manager.
>  - tagging for releases will require changes as it's not possible to tag
> only one (sub) project.
> = second approach =
> We maintain cluster.git as single entity. Each (sub) project would
> become a separate branch.
> So for example all the gnbd code will be branched into master-gnbd (and
> so on for all the others).
> Checking out one specific HEAD will only show the code for that project.
> Pro:
>  - cleaner look at the tree.
>  - partially preserve current development model (still easy to cherry
> pick changes between branches)
>  - external users don't need to build the whole tree.
> Cons:
>  - more expensive branch management.
>  - tagging for releases will require small changes.
> = third approach =
> We copy cluster.git N times for each (sub) project, clean the master
> branch to match only that (sub)project.
> Pro:
>  - very clean tree from checkout
>  - each (sub) project is really separated and will have its own
> identity.
>  - external users don't need to build the whole tree.
>  - easier to fine tune access to each single component (for example we
> can allow user foo to access dlm but not gfs... or whatever combination)
> Cons:
>  - more complex process to perform cherry-pick between branches.
>  - higher risk to commit fixes in one branch and forget in another.
>  - requires a lot more developer attention.

I think I would votes for 3, 1, 2 in that order.

3 is definitely the best option IMHO. The cons don't make much
difference really - as I understand it, we're not splitting branches but
projects so there will be no, or very little, need to copy fixes across
git trees. Even for the few occasions when it might be necessary, git is
quite capable of generating usable patches.

2 is an inholy mess and an abuse of git's branching system I think.
Please don't do this!

1 is more trouble than it sounds - speaking from experience with the old
RHEL4 tree. You have a tree that looks like it's self-contained, but you
still have to install bits of it to make things build properly. That's
just confusing and annoying.


More information about the Pacemaker mailing list