[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: template directory structure




----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Clayton Coleman" <ccoleman redhat com>
> > To: "Vojtech Vitek" <vvitek redhat com>
> > Cc: dev lists openshift redhat com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:02:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: template directory structure
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > following the PHP public dir discussion
> > > https://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshift-archives/dev/2013-March/msg00079.html
> > > 
> > > I was thinking of the base cartridge template (and thus also
> > > quickstarts) directory
> > > structure. What I think would be simplest and most clear command
> > > to
> > > deploy any
> > > PHP framework to the OpenShift:
> > > 
> > > $ rhc app create drupal php-5.3 mysql-5.1 cron
> > > --from-code=git://github.com/drupal/drupal.git
> > > 
> > > Meaning that I'm able to deploy any upstream source code right
> > > away
> > > without any
> > > of the OpenShift glue files, such as:
> > > 
> > > .openshift
> > > libs
> > > misc
> > > README.md
> > > deplist.txt
> > > php/<UPSTREAM FILES>
> > > 
> > > What I propose is putting all of the OpenShift config files to
> > > the
> > > .openshift/
> > > directory, so the git root directory is always "clear" and
> > > compatible
> > > with upstream:
> > > .openshift/deplist.txt
> > > .openshift/libs/
> > > .openshift/action_hooks/
> > > .openshift/install_profiles/
> > > .openshift/markers
> > > <UPSTREAM FILES> (could be misc/, libs/ etc.)
> > > 
> > > What would be the long-term benefit of this? The upstreams would
> > > be
> > > able to
> > > maintain their own .openshift/ directory themselves and there
> > > would
> > > be no need
> > > of "<upstream>-quickstart.git" repos! => NO LOCK-IN
> > 
> > Is there a real likelihood upstream will do this?  I tend to doubt
> > it
> > for any of the big apps.  As mike noted libs is questionable -
> > would
> > be better to just remove it, but the rest makes sense.
> 
> I think it is - once we prove we're the right choice for them.
> 
> If the upstream won't like to have the .openshift/ directory in their
> source codes, then we can have a separate "quick-start settings" git
> repository with only the .openshift/ directory, eg:
> 
>  $ rhc app create drupal php-5.3 mysql-5.1 cron
>   --from-code=git://github.com/drupal/drupal.git
>   --settings-from-code=git://github.com/openshift/openshift-drupal.git
> 
> About the libs/ directory - I agree we should get rid of it and let
> developers use it the way how they want to.
> 
> > 
> > One note - we can't break all the existing PHP apps on openshift,
> > so
> > we still have to support multiple root directories.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Are we going to update all v1 cartridges to v2 automatically btw?
> Or are we going to wait for the developers to create their own v2 app
> and migrate the code themselves?

There will be a migration in where V1 carts will be replaced by V2 carts, and applications need to continue to run.  Developers will not need to migrate anything, so the V2 carts have to support all the same scenarios as v1 carts.  Developers can't choose to install a V2 cart, it's just "the newest rpm version of the PHP cart".

> 
> - Vojtech
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'm looking forward your opinions on this.
> > > 
> > > - Vojtech
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > Vojtech Vitek
> > > Red Hat, Inc.
> > > Brno, Czech Rep.
> > > GSM: +420608260892
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]