> > > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 17:00, Victor Toso <victortoso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > >> > >>> On 27 Jul 2017, at 16:04, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:29:11PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 27 Jul 2017, at 15:25, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> README | 2 +- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/README b/README > >>>>> index 45fbe89c..0fd6f071 100644 > >>>>> --- a/README > >>>>> +++ b/README > >>>>> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Or to install into a private user specific location > >>>>> The following mandatory dependencies are required in order to > >>>>> build SPICE > >>>>> > >>>>> - Spice protocol >= 0.9.0 > >>>>> + Spice protocol >= 0.12.13 > >>>> > >>>> What is the rationale for spice-protocol not being a submodule? > >>> > >>> It's used by multiple modules (spice-server, spice-gtk, the agent, > >>> the QX driver, ..) and has a stable API. > >> > >> And how does any of that not make it not a submodule? > >> > >> - Used by multiple modules: yes, that’s precisely what submodules are > >> for (that’s also the case for spice-common). > >> - Has a stable API: yes, but when we need to change it, it would be > >> nice to have that the change recorded in git history of the modules > >> using it. > >> > >> For example, a lot of the streaming work requires a branched-off > >> spice-protocol. > >> > >> I was also wondering about protocol updates being easier to do in a > >> consistent way if spice-protocol was “above” spice-serverr and > >> spice-gtk. Which could be solved by having a submodule structure like: > >> > >> spice > >> spice-protocol > >> spice-common > >> spice-server > >> spice-gtk > >> > >> instead of the current: > >> > >> (nothing) > >> spice-protocol > >> spice (not called spice-server) > >> spice-common > >> spice-gtk > >> spice-common > >> > >> Christophe > > > > Another discussion about how things should be done? > > Not how things should be done, more “why are they done like this”. Trying to > understand if > it’s just “design by history and random evolution” or if there is an actual > rationale behind it. > > > > > I don't see what you want to achieve here. Renaming? spice-protocol as > > submodule? Why do you think this is important? > > As I wrote above, if only because spice-protocol is currently a branch for > the streaming work. > > If I want to share a series of patch that impact multiple components, say (at > random) my > flight recorder work, I don’t see a good / consistent way to do it today. > > - Should I make ‘recorder’ an independent module like spice-protocol? But if > so, how do I sync it with the code using it? > - Should I make it a submodule like spice-common? But then, isn’t it annoying > to have that in half a dozen projects? > > What do you think is the correct way? > > > Christophe > So... you open a forum after we are discussing PRs and so on with questions about repository renames, you reply to a mail that update a dependency version in a README file and at the end you ask why you can't do with your `recorder`. Maybe it's just me but I'm a bit confused :-) Maybe the solution for multiple repository to update is using the same name for the branch. Not clear how your recorder interact with git. Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel