Add support for git volumes.

No strong preferences.  "commit" is an active word, that feels like the act
of submitting, rather than "revision" which is more descriptive and feels
like the state of the repository.  Also "revision" feels more generally
source control like, where-as commit is pretty git specific.

I have no problems merging a PR in v1beta3 to make this "Commit" instead.
(since it is a breaking api change) Anyone else have thoughts?

--brendan

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Clayton Coleman <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> In pkg/api/types.go:
>
> > @@ -187,6 +189,15 @@ type GCEPersistentDisk struct {
> >  	ReadOnly bool `yaml:"readOnly,omitempty" json:"readOnly,omitempty"`
> >  }
> >
> > +// GitRepo represents a volume that is pulled from git when the pod is created.
> > +type GitRepo struct {
> > +	// Repository URL
> > +	Repository string `yaml:"repository" json:"repository"`
> > +	// Commit hash, this is optional
> > +	Revision string `yaml:"revision" json:"revision"`
>
> One comment here - we are having the debate in OpenShift about what to use
> in a similar spot for Git (for builds), and had been leaning towards
> Commit because that's what git checkout uses from the doc:
>
> git checkout [-q] [-f] [-m] [--detach] <commit>
>
> Revision is also valid (git rev-parse), and is a bit broader in scope
> across other SCMs. So neither is wrong, but we do want to be consistent. Is
> there a strong preference for Revision here over Commit? Other arguments
> we've missed?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/pull/1945/files#r19737560>
> .
>