Contributors mailing list archives

Browse archives


Re: Proposal to support small repos into the current OCA workflow

KMEE Informatica ltda, Luis F Miléo
- 23/06/2016 07:56:28
Very nice +1

This will bring many benefits to the l10ns.


- Luis Felipe Miléo
Gerência de Implementação
+55 35 3622-2542
Parceiro oficial:

De: "Daniel Reis" <>
Para: "Contributors" <>
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de junho de 2016 9:23:22
Assunto: Re: Proposal to support small repos into the current OCA workflow

Hello all,

I conducted a first experiment on this workflow.

GitHub only allows to create PRs from forked repositories.
So the proposal to integrate a new repo needs to be done differently.

My idea is to keep a "oca_modules.txt" file in the integration repos, similar to the existing "oca_dependencies.txt".
This file lists the satellite repos to integrate in the reference repo.
A nightly script would perform, for each line, the following command:

    git merge -X ours$SATELLITE_REPO -b $BRANCH

The "ours" merge strategy keeps the integration repo top level dotfiles (.travis.yml, README, .gitignore,, etc).

So, proposing to add a new repo should be creating PR to add a line to the "oca_modules.txt" file.
To follow the changes and discussion, people need to manually follow the proposed repository.
The best the author can do is to later post  reminders on this PR if it needs more people to come into the discussion.

I couldn't test the ownership transfer to the OCA, but it seems that the original owner should add the OCA organization as owner ,and then remove himself:

After this, we could merge the PR adding the repo to the "oca_modules.txt" file.
It would be desirable to be able to confirm that integrating the new repo would keep TravisCI green.
For this, we should improve the MQT, so that it merges the proposed repo and lets us see how the tests work after the merge.
The git-subrepo extension could be helpful here, but I worry if it supports merge strategies, since the "-X ours" is really necessary.

Sounds good?
I would like to start an experiment on OCA/project, and already have an idea for the candidate repo.


Citando Graeme Gellatly <>:


At airport so can't elaborate but take a look at Then you can have atomic repos, aggregate ones, ppl just working on what they need, distribution repos etc. Tbh I've not used this yet, but did use git subtree which worked really well.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 3:53 AM Daniel Reis <> wrote:

Just a tiny comment: Would it be bad to suggest a OCA-dev organization? This prevent's cluttering the actual nicly organized repos. Yet this might be a technical detail and you already conceived it that way. 

Indeed, an OCA-dev org could provide a nice sandbox for contributors to collaborate.
But crowd discussions are hard, and it's best to keep the discussion topic narrow and focused.
I believe that it is something we can bring up at a later time.

Post to:

Post to:


Post to: