[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About Opscode's cookbook repo changes

[Adam Jacob < >]

Miquel,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Miquel Torres 
<
 >
 wrote:
> there are no conflicts, and certainly can be done. It just has many
> dependencies for what in LittleChef's case would be a small use case
> (translating ruby to JSON, basically).

This comes down to what the repositories are actually for. We're
hosting the code in development - those repositories make no promises
about functionality, release quality, or anything else. The packages
you can retrieve from community.opscode.com, on the other hand, do
have compiled metadata.json files - because they are released
artifacts that are meant to be consumed.

Mandating changes to developer workflows is, in my opinion, the wrong
way to go about it - I think we should be standardizing on a mechanism
for retrieval of stable artifacts. We do need to make it easier to
integrate those with the developer workflow, but the difference is
important - and this case is why. As the maintainers, we made an easy
choice - putting those generated artifacts in the source repository
meant a needless amount of churn, and we always rely on the version
generated. The metadata is all there in the released artifacts - it's
the marriage of dev workflow with the tooling that is the problem
here.

Adam

-- 
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
T: (206) 619-7151 E: