Propose moving scanCode to independent "utilities" repo. (outside core openwhisk repo.)

[Matt Rutkowski <mr...@us.ibm.com>]

It is my goal to have all repos. use the same scanCode (.py, .cfg, and 
sample headers), but since this utility and its dependent files are under 
the incubator-openwhisk repo. it makes it rather hard for other projects 
to run it as part of Travis as it requires a clone of incubator-openwhisk 
just to get at a handful of files (overkill).

In addition, it seems that there may other "utilities" (e.g., log, debug, 
etc.) that we wish to share across all repos. and they need a place to 
"live" outside the core openwhisk repository.

Given these issues and goals, I would like to propose the creation of an 
"incubator-openwhisk-utilities" repo. (open to other names, but this seems 
accurate and generic enough for other similar tools) where we can move 
scanCode to and also be a home for "lightweight" utilities that are not as 
cumbersome to clone when needed.

Any thoughts on this; would like to proceed on this with INFRA to move on 
this proposal soon if no one objects.

Kind regards,
Matt 

Re: Propose moving scanCode to independent "utilities" repo. (outside core openwhisk repo.)

[Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>]

+1
I see that you already created the repo.

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM Matt Rutkowski <mr...@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> It is my goal to have all repos. use the same scanCode (.py, .cfg, and
> sample headers), but since this utility and its dependent files are under
> the incubator-openwhisk repo. it makes it rather hard for other projects
> to run it as part of Travis as it requires a clone of incubator-openwhisk
> just to get at a handful of files (overkill).
>
> In addition, it seems that there may other "utilities" (e.g., log, debug,
> etc.) that we wish to share across all repos. and they need a place to
> "live" outside the core openwhisk repository.
>
> Given these issues and goals, I would like to propose the creation of an
> "incubator-openwhisk-utilities" repo. (open to other names, but this seems
> accurate and generic enough for other similar tools) where we can move
> scanCode to and also be a home for "lightweight" utilities that are not as
> cumbersome to clone when needed.
>
> Any thoughts on this; would like to proceed on this with INFRA to move on
> this proposal soon if no one objects.
>
> Kind regards,
> Matt
>
>