Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 1, 2022. It is now read-only.

Refactor update and release packages to break some dependencies #1033

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

squaremo
Copy link
Member

@squaremo squaremo commented Mar 29, 2018

Just one commit -- the other will be rebassed away once #1027 is merged. (EDIT: the rebass is accomplished)

The main change here is to move policy update specs into update/ and their application into release/, thus putting them in the same place as image updates (i.e, releases) and treating them more or less uniformly.

Part of this was breaking the dependence of the cluster package on the update package, which itself was a whisker away from depending on cluster. This'll make it easier to move more things around.

In the interest of getting all the manifest-updating code in one
place, and breaking some dependencies, this commit

 - moves the type policy.Update and associated code to update.Policy,
   where the other kinds of update are

 - reimplements the commit message so that it doesn't get calculated
   via constructing events, which aren't themselves used anywhere

 - removes the unused policy events, excepting EventUpdatePolicy,
   which is still used (just not as an event type)

 - breaks the dependency of cluster.Manifests on the update package,
   which will make it easier to refactor other code

 - moves the application of policy, which was inlined in the daemon,
   into the release package
@squaremo squaremo force-pushed the refactor/update-and-release branch from 111454a to fb7b4af Compare April 4, 2018 14:53
@squaremo squaremo requested a review from samb1729 April 4, 2018 14:54
@squaremo squaremo removed the request for review from samb1729 June 21, 2018 13:59
@squaremo squaremo added the blocked-rebase PR needs a rebase before it can be reviewed/merged label Jun 21, 2018
@2opremio
Copy link
Contributor

@squaremo are you planning to revive this at some point or should we close it?

@squaremo
Copy link
Member Author

are you planning to revive this at some point or should we close it?

Good question -- aside from a bit of renaming faff, it does have some useful tidies. I'll give reviving a go, and close if that's at all tricky.

@squaremo
Copy link
Member Author

Oh yeah, this comes off rather badly in a collision with #2201. Never mind, maybe another time ..

@squaremo squaremo closed this Jul 15, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
blocked-rebase PR needs a rebase before it can be reviewed/merged
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants