Uploaded image for project: 'VOLTHA'
  1. VOLTHA
  2. VOL-5295

Consistency needed in naming across all voltha resources: branch, tag, labels, etc

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Type: Story
    • Status: To Do (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Medium
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: ci-system
    • Labels:
      None
    • Story Points:
      0

      Description

      Writeup a proposal for normalizing and establishing conventions for resource naming.

      We have inconsistencies across most revision control and artifact servers.

       

      Tagnames:

      • golang repository tags are prefixed with vee (v.1.2.3):
        • Tag name is used verbatim when referencing packages.
      • non-golang repos omit vee (1.2.3)

       

      Docker:

      • Some artifacts labels contain prefix voltha-*.
        • Others do not.
      • Some artifacts have label for release tag name (1.2.3)
        • Others do not

      Branches & Tags

      • To avoid creating versioning problems at release time some repos:
        • Branch then tag (voltha-2.12, 1.2.3)
        • Tag then branch (1.2.3, voltha-2.12)
      • This may contribute to some of the naming inconsistency above.
      • Tags also have an added problem that VERSION file string can conflict/overwrite established tagging within a repository.

       

      One option may be to introduce new prefixes for tagging:

      • Both would contain more than a simple version string:
        • release branch name
        • release tag name
        • others (- ? -)

       

      Then for each repository and resource:

      • gerrit / github branches, tags, releases.
      • docker artifacts
      • pypi artifacts
      • etc

      Iterate and consistently tag & label artifacts.

       

      For release iterate and create at a minimum release-{branch,tag}-name.

      •  Plenty of scripting changes will need to support this.
      •  Individual repositories and releases have evolved over time.
      • Iterate over each individually:
        • determine which JJB scripts are involved
        • determine output and inconsistencies
      • Update scripts and refactor to produce good answers.
      • Create unit tests to lock down the behavior.

        Attachments

        No reviews matched the request. Check your Options in the drop-down menu of this sections header.

          Activity

            People

            Assignee:
            joey Joey Armstrong
            Reporter:
            joey Joey Armstrong
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              Created:
              Updated:

                Gerrit Reviews

                There are no open Gerrit changes