core: change directory layout

[leseb]

Description of your changes:

As per discussion, proposing a new layout for the charts/yaml/olm files.

./deploy
├── charts
│   ├── rook-ceph
│   │   └── templates
│   └── rook-ceph-cluster
│       └── templates
├── examples
│   ├── csi
│   │   ├── cephfs
│   │   └── rbd
│   ├── flex
│   ├── monitoring
│   ├── pre-k8s-1.16
└── olm
    └── assemble

Signed-off-by: Sébastien Han seb@redhat.com

Which issue is resolved by this Pull Request:
Resolves #

Checklist:

• Commit Message Formatting: Commit titles and messages follow guidelines in the developer guide.
• Skip Tests for Docs: Add the flag for skipping the build if this is only a documentation change. See here for the flag.
• Skip Unrelated Tests: Add a flag to run tests for a specific storage provider. See test options.
• Reviewed the developer guide on Submitting a Pull Request
• Documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Unit tests have been added, if necessary.
• Integration tests have been added, if necessary.
• Pending release notes updated with breaking and/or notable changes, if necessary.
• Upgrade from previous release is tested and upgrade user guide is updated, if necessary.
• Code generation (make codegen) has been run to update object specifications, if necessary.

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/master/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[travisn]

Why change cluster to deploy? IMO cluster works well already for the root folder, and examples is easier to understand than manual.

./cluster
├── charts
│   ├── rook-ceph
│   │   └── templates
│   └── rook-ceph-cluster
│       └── templates
├── examples
│   ├── csi
│   │   ├── cephfs
│   │   └── rbd
│   ├── flex
│   ├── monitoring
│   ├── pre-k8s-1.16
│   └── test-data
└── olm
    └── assemble

[leseb]

Why change cluster to deploy? IMO cluster works well already for the root folder, and examples is easier to understand than manual.

./cluster
├── charts
│   ├── rook-ceph
│   │   └── templates
│   └── rook-ceph-cluster
│       └── templates
├── examples
│   ├── csi
│   │   ├── cephfs
│   │   └── rbd
│   ├── flex
│   ├── monitoring
│   ├── pre-k8s-1.16
│   └── test-data
└── olm
    └── assemble

Honestly, I've always struggled to understand why we had cluster. IMO deploy works better, if I'm the root of the repository and I'm looking for deployment files, then deploy makes sense.
Following this, you can choose between a manual deployment, chartsdeployment with helm or olm for a deployment with OLM. If we find a better name than manual I'm open for changes.

Let's discuss this in the huddle :)

[BlaineEXE]

A tangential question: why is test-data/ in the examples dir? Shouldn't this be under our tests dir?

[leseb]

A tangential question: why is test-data/ in the examples dir? Shouldn't this be under our tests dir?

Good point, let me move it out.

[travisn]

The directory changes look good, pending discussion in the community meeting.

With all the whitespace and formatting changes, it's going to cause a lot of merge conflicts with backports since these changes will just stay in master. What if we had a separate PR for all the whitespace and formatting that we do backport to 1.7 and keep this change just for the directory rename?

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/master/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/master/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[travisn]

Is it too early in the 1.8 cycle for this with all the potential backport conflicts? Or maybe we should just go ahead with all the big changes and plan on resolving more backport conflicts...

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/master/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[leseb]

Is it too early in the 1.8 cycle for this with all the potential backport conflicts? Or maybe we should just go ahead with all the big changes and plan on resolving more backport conflicts...

It is going to introduce more conflicts. I don't mind holding this one for a month or so if it's for everyone's best.

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/latest/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/latest/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/latest/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[leseb]

@Mergifyio rebase

[mergify]

Command rebase: failure

Pull request can't be updated with latest base branch changes
GitHub App like Mergify are not allowed to rebase pull request where .github/workflows is changed.
This pull request must be rebased manually.
err-code: EEA95

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in two weeks if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[BlaineEXE]

Not stale. Just waiting until we start releasing v1.8 betas.

[mergify]

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged. @leseb please rebase it. https://rook.io/docs/rook/latest/development-flow.html#updating-your-fork

[travisn]

Approving, with a few minor issues that would be best to fix before merge if possible