On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:01 AM, 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? >
For such a big changes, I can't imagine we do it directly in trunk. In my opinion it should live in a branch while we improve it? Also related question, if we split couch into modules, how is it handle as an apache project? - benoît
