On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> > >> >
didn't test but apparently there is the option -rmdir that you can pass to dcommit with git-svn so using git mv ... then git dcommit -rmdir .. may works. Need to test. Can you make available your changes on github? I will try with a svnsync then git later this morning. - benoît
