Different libs -> different projects

[adrienverge]

There are important drawbacks with having all our "common modules" (kinetic, linter conf, etc.) in the same repo.

• Everything is packaged together, so only one common versioning is possible. This is a real problem if, for instance:
  • IronMan-Vault project A depends on Arsenal/kinetic v1.0 and Arsenal/otherlib v2.0
  • IronMan-Data project B depends on Arsenal/kinetic v2.0 and Arsenal/otherlib v1.0
• If a project (let's say Vault) only requires Arsenal/eslintrc it will have Arsenal as a depency and will have to download/include all the other libs in Arsenal.
• Having different projects in the same git repo mixes commits and makes reviewing harder.

I'd rather have different GitHub project for different libs. It will prevent trouble in the future. And it's still easy to do it now.

[adrienverge]

• Other problem: Arsenal's index.js can only have one default export (if we export multiple libs in it, they'll no longer be default). This has consequences (for instance, I don't see how we can have our .eslintrc referencing Arsenal as the linting rule).

[ghost]

Having a kinetic-node repo could be great to avoid unnecessary install steps for some modules, and I don't think having a public repo for the linter could be a problem either.

Overall I think this is a good idea. What do the other members of @scality/team-ironman think about that?

[ghost]

Seen with Adrien with his poc for an independent Guidelines repository for
the contributing guidelines, as well as the eslitn config.

I agreed with his proposal, as it seems more modular, and better suited for
the npm use.

David Pineau
Scality R&D Developer

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Michael Zapata notifications@github.com
wrote:

Having a kinetic-node could be great to avoid unnecessary install steps,
and I don't think having a public repo for the linter could be a problem
either.

Overall I think this is a good idea. What do the other members of
@scality/team-ironman https://github.com/orgs/scality/teams/team-ironman
think about that?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#12 (comment)
.

[adrienverge]

What about renaming IronMan-Arsenal to IronMan-Kinetic (cf. the versioning concerns)?

[ghost]

Will we really only have kinetic inside this repository ? I'm not really
sure that it's what's gonna happen. Also, we need to decide with the whole
team whether we actually try to explode the number of repositories or not.
I know some of us are not too fond of this strategy; although I understand
the appeal of it.

David Pineau
Scality R&D Developer

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Adrien Vergé notifications@github.com
wrote:

What about renaming IronMan-Arsenal to IronMan-Kinetic (cf. the
versioning concerns)?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#12 (comment)
.

[adrienverge]

The versioning problem (post #1) is a real problem. :/

What other libs do we plan to put in Arsenal?

[ratmav]

I've been bouncing the ops code and docs from repo to repo since FanOut. My understanding is that the general things (base Dockerfile, Ansible playbooks) go here, while the CI-specific things (test Dockerfile) go in IronMan-CI. If that's not the case, just let me know and I'll move things (Ansible, Docker, etc.) wherever they need to go.

[adrienverge]

Done.