user3188445
user3188445

Reputation: 4774

How to merge similar multi-package projects in go

Several organizations distribute variants of the same project, and we regularly pull changes from one another. It would be great if we could eventually merge code repositories and maybe, maybe have a common source tree managed by a consortium. However, each member would probably want the option of distributing their own variant without too much pain for customers in case there is trouble upstreaming changes required to work with newer products.

The project consists of three packages:

  1. A library
  2. A compiler executable that outputs go code that needs to import the library
  3. A utility executable that uses code generated by #2 and links with #1

A big annoyance, when pulling changes back and forth, is gratuitous differences in import paths. We basically have to edit every version of import "github.com/companyA/whatever" to import "companyB.com/whatever". Of course these problems would go away with (gasp) relative import paths. If we resorted to such heresy, our compiler can just hard-code the absolute import path in generated code to isolate end users from the library's import path. It would also require only one gratuitous difference in the source trees (the line in the compiler that outputs import statements) rather than a bunch.

But anyway, I know relative import paths are bad - this is a tricky situation. I know this is similar to questions such as this or this, because the answer of just asking end users to create a directory called companyB.com and cloning something from companyA in there is just not going to fly for practical and political reasons.

I already know that go is not really good at accommodating this scenario, so I'm also not asking for a magic bullet to make go handle something it can't. Another thing that unfortunately won't fly is asking customers to curl whatever | sh, as this is viewed as too much of a liability (deemed "training customers to do dangerous things"). Maybe we could forego go get and have everyone clone to some neutral non-DNS-name under $GOPATH/src, but we would need to do this without a "flag day" in which code suddenly breaks if it's in the wrong place.

My question is whether anyone has successfully merged SDK-type projects with existing end users, and if so, how did you do it, what worked, and what didn't? Did you in fact avoid relative import paths or gnarly GOPATH hacking, and if so was it worth it? What mechanisms did you employ (environment variables, configuration files, .project-config files in the current working directory, abusing the vendor directory, code-generation packages that figure out their absolute import path at compliation time) to make this work smoothly? Did you just muddle through with a huge amount of sed or maybe gofmt -r? Are there tricks involving clever use of .gitattributes or go generate to rewrite import paths on checkout/checkin?

Upvotes: 0

Views: 557

Answers (1)

Adrian
Adrian

Reputation: 46532

Merging them is pretty easy - cross-merge so that they all match, pick one (or create a new one) as the canonical source of truth, then migrate all references to the canonical import and make all future updates there.

The probablem arises here:

each member would probably want the option of distributing their own variant without too much pain for customers in case there is trouble upstreaming changes required to work with newer products

There's no particularly good way to do that without using any of the known solutions you've already ruled out, and no way to do that depending on your threshold for "too much pain".

Without knowing more about the situation it's hard to suggest options, but if there's any way that each company can abstract their portion out into a separate library they could maintain and update at their pace while using a smaller shared library with shared responsibility, that would likely be the best option - something like the model used by Terraform for its providers? Basically you'd have shared maintenance of a shared "core" and then independent maintenance of "vendor-specific" packages.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions