openstack team mailing list archive

[Russell Bryant <rbryant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/14/2011 09:46 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14 2011, John Dickinson wrote:
>
> > But it's metadata about the code (a particular review pattern with a
> > particular vcs). VCS info does not belong in the code. I'll admit that I
> > like a dotfile in the repo much better than I like rfc.sh in the repo, but
> > I'd prefer to keep info about remotes, review processes, and other repo
> > metadata out of the repo. If this is something for a particular VCS (as the
> > proposed git-review is), it should use the established locations for that
> > particular VCS. In this case, git-review should pull info from the .git
> > directory (more specifically, the git config data).
>
> I understand your statement, but I don't think it is the good thing to
> fight for this. You can consider that .gitignore is VCS metadata too.
> But it exists everywhere.
>
> Every file is a file particular to a tool used in a project, being
> Python, a Makefile, or a Git file. :)

At least as far as the generic tool is concerned, how about support 
both?  As an example, check out these docs for post-review from the 
reviewboard project:

    http://www.reviewboard.org/docs/manual/dev/users/tools/post-review/

The equivalent information can either be stored in a dot file or in git 
config.  Since obviously there are differing opinions, it would be nice 
to provide both.  Supporting both also provides a convenient way to be 
able to locally override the default that is committed into the repository.

--
Russell Bryant