openstack team mailing list archive

[Monty Taylor <mordred@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/14/2011 02:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> 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.

++