On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 26, 2010 6:02 PM, "Paul Davis" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, December 4, 2010, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>>> Heya, >> >>>> >> >>>> I've just finished getting the refactoring of the source tree to be >> >>>> more compliant with OTP source code layout. This is a pretty big move >> >>>> so I'd like at least a couple other people to test this. If you have > a >> >>>> platform that is not OS X or Ubuntu, consider this an extra special >> >>>> request so that we have confidence that I haven't broken one of the >> >>>> uncommon platforms. >> >>>> >> >>>> The repo for the scripts and patches are at [1]. You should be able > to >> >>>> get a fully refactored couch with: >> >>>> >> >>>> $ git clone git://github.com/davisp/couchdb-srcmv.git >> >>>> $ cd couchdb-srcmv >> >>>> $ ./srcmv.py >> >>>> >> >>>> Once you have that, there's a couchdb.git subdirectory that is a >> >>>> checkout of the entire source tree. Once there, you can build and > test >> >>>> couchdb as per normal. Also, I would appreciate anyone that goes the >> >>>> extra effort and runs the install into a tmp location and runs the >> >>>> Futon tests on the installed version to make sure everything still >> >>>> passes. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ideally I'd like to get this into trunk fairly shortly so that it has >> >>>> as long as possible to sit in trunk before we cut 1.2.x. Let me know >> >>>> if there are any comments or complaints on it. >> >>>> >> >>>> Paul Davis >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/davisp/couchdb-srcmv >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> After thinking about it, I don't see the point of having a script to >> >>> maintain patches, + patches coming with. It make review hard compared >> >>> to having a branch dedicated to this refactoring. Also it stops >> >>> somehow any external work of yours hard (eg. can't go further without >> >>> waiting your updates). Can't we just open a branch on svn and start to >> >>> work on it. Which would also allow us to wait for fdmanana merge of >> >>> new replicator >> >>> >> >> >> >> You are free to attempt that. I on the other hand want no part of >> >> having to deal with rebasing that set of patches using SVN's merge. On >> >> the other hand, if we did this as a git repository we'd lose the >> >> history for the entire source tree which would be even worse. >> >> >> >>> Related notes from my experiences and reads of the night: >> >>> >> >>> There are other needed changes imo: >> >>> >> >>> - removing call go http layer in core ( for example in attachments), >> >> >> >> These patches don't fix everything. I very explicitly wanted to >> >> minimize the scope of these patches to solely moving files around and >> >> then fixing anything that broke. After these land in trunk there's >> >> still going to be a lot of work left on fixing other aspects of the >> >> code. >> >> >> >>> - having a CouchDB app that reconciliate. core (b-tree, changes, db >> >>> api) and other members. Such things. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by reconciling the various apps. As I >> >> mention above, there's a lot to do. By no means am I suggesting this >> >> patch is comprehensive. Just enough to get over the large hurdle of >> >> refactoring the pathnames for files in the source tree. >> >> >> >>> I would be happy to work and the work in srcmv is already 70-80% of >> >>> what we ant. So is there any possibility to have a branch? >> >>> >> >> >> >> I am very scared of SVN's merging. There are nightmares involved. I >> >> can barely manage to backport patches from trunk. I'm so anti-SVN I'm >> >> working with infra to try and start us using Git. SVN is the devil. >> >> >> >> That said, if you think you'd be all right handling such a large >> >> branch and the merge back to trunk after the replicator lands then by >> >> all means feel free to start one. I just chose not to. >> >> >> >> HTH, >> >> Paul Davis >> >> >> > >> > Well at one point we should merge, whatever is the solution. Do we >> > really want final tests are done in trunk ? >> > >> >> How do you mean final tests? >> >> > I think there are way to merge from git to svn too. My point is that >> > right now, we can't work on a branch , just test. And the more code >> > will be added to the trunk the more it become difficult to merge too. >> > >> >> I have no idea how git-svn would handle pushing such a large move up >> to SVN. Perhaps it'd work magically but I didn't feel like setting up >> the infrastructure to go through and test it to make sure that we're >> not dropping our entire repository history. >> >> As to rebasing this patch set, its fairly trivial if a bit boring. >> > > If you can rebase it so it's linear from the end of trunk you can push it up > with git-svn no problem. You do the rebasing locally and then just `git svn > dcommit`. Am I missing something? >
The question is about how git-svn would handle a rename. If its a rm+add then its a non-starter. But this is exactly what I didn't want to configure to study the details. When does a git rename get translated to an svn rename, and what are the rules there. >> > - benoît >> > >
