Comment # 7
on bug 1143
from Nathan Scott
(In reply to comment #6)
> Henceforth, the "release model" consists of
> a tag on the tree, wherefrom anyone can generate a tarball:
OK, that's a promising development.
The tag name chosen is a bit unfortunate - almost had downloadable source
tarballs "for free" from github ...
https://github.com/performancecopilot/pcp-webjs/releases
... but because the tag name doesn't follow convention, this falls in a bit of
a heap. The tarball is now "pcp-webjs-pcp-webjs-x.y.z.tar.gz" and inside it
has the same incorrect path prefix.
I'm punting that it didn't follow convention because you wanted to duplicate an
existing PCP release number instead of starting one for pcp-webjs (seems odd to
me, but whatever floats your boat) - and the problem then became your way of
forcing all this code to live in the pcpfans.git tree alongside pcp branches?
That tree already has a "3.11.2" tag from upstream pcp, so you had to go with
"pcp-webjs-3.11.2" - is that right? Looks like you might be trying to
shoe-horn too much into pcpfans.git, if that's indeed the case, and perhaps a
pcp-webjs.git would simplify things on sourceware.
> It has exactly the same amount of documentation in the release
> tarballs as vector does: zero.
There's several different documentation needs here. One specific kind of
missing doc (that I've asked for in the past) is a description of rebuilding
the components from their upstream sources.
It would also be good to have a top-level README that describes why the project
exists, its goals, and so on too - that would explain to the casual observer
how to setup and use these tools, and also give a developer a head start if
they wanted to hack on it (esp. since alot of it is "compiled" _javascript_ code
that has git-commit'd AIUI).
Expect most people to find the project on github, so its worth doing things
right there: https://github.com/performancecopilot/pcp-webjs ... suggests "Help
people interested in this repository understand your project by adding a
README.". (if you don't want a github repo anymore, given the tag-induced
problems above, please just nuke it)
The docs should point to where the graphite and grafana code was forked from:
https://github.com/grafana/grafana/releases ?
https://github.com/graphite-project/graphite-web ?
So - which versions of the above, why those particular versions, what versions
of Internet Explorer are known to not work, etc ... maybe a quick start guide
to get up and running quickly like Vector and PCP have.
In the case of grafana, it'd be worth discussing why it requires that older
upstream release / branch & why it doesn't work with current versions, what
that patch is all about, and so on. (for potential developers)
> > and it still contains a redundant, dated copy of Vector
>
> [...]. Mere redundancy is harmless
There are good reasons not to create duplicate copies of large amounts of code.
It would be preferable to remove the extra shell snippets that we have had to
add to deal with this (in the spec & makefiles), rather than propagate this
further and into the deb build too.
cheers.