Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Hi Martin,
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 21:45, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
I had a lot of interesting discussion about various distributed SCM and
subversion in the meantime. For me it looks the discussion and evalution
of distributed SCM needs some more time than just a month because the
use of such a system also can improve or at least change our development
processes. I also have the impression that both subversion and a DSCM
(git, mercurial) can serve our needs.
Unfortunately, SVN does not serve our (= people around ooo-build)
needs :-( [CVS even less, of course.]
What we need is a tool that allows us to have a modified codebase (ooo-build)
while we are still able to contribute the modifications back to up-stream
easily. Today we solve it with huge amount of patches (~1000), we have to
create CWS'es from that, and it's becoming hard to manage, especially with
I see how a DSCM would help you maintain ooo-build and that SVN would be
no omprovement here. But, contributing back would not be influenced by
whatever SCM we have. That would be by CWS in any case, I think
big features like the VBA interoperability or cairo canvas. DSCM is so far
the most suitable way these days (and git in particular seems to be the
best).
[...]
I also hope you don't want to do just a partial import as I saw somewhere; one
where the history would consist just from 'integration commits' & the history
in the branches would be abandoned. This would completely screw the ability
to blame someone for a change that happend in CVS; and there would be no way
back even if we decided to go with git (or any other DSCM) later - the
information would be missing then.
See Heiners description of our current plans at
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/SCM_Migration
Yes, we want to keep main part of history (though not all old branches).
This BTW seems to be a big advantage of SVN: import into git in a
reasonable time frame up to now only succeeded without history, AFAIK.
But, please correct me if I am wrong here.
A switch to DSCM is the bigger and a promising step: enhancements of our
development model and style look possible, I can't list all aspects now.
But a transition to a DSCM seems to need more preparation and
development: we need to review and maybe redesign our processes, we need
a more mature system with support for all major platforms, need to think
about additional infrastructure and more things.
Yes. A prerequisite for seeing the most advantages from the move to DSCM is a
split of the sources to smaller parts - URE, OOo w/o URE, copies of the
system libraries, translations, ODK. [And ideally even a separate ODF
toolkit ;-)]
Why would this be a prerequisite?
[..]
As a second step or in parallel keep the evaluation for alternative SCM
open, lets use face-to-face meetings on next OOoCon for a more in depth
discussion about the future developments in our process. I guess some of
you may think that with a transition from CVS to subversion this
discussion might be dead, but I definitely don't think so. The
opportunities we have with a modern SCM are to much to get ignored but
we need some time for such thought which I don't want to let get passed
by by sitting on our old CVS.
This generally sounds OK to me if we agree that:
- No switch to SVN until a converted tree will be publically available for
testing for some time
- It will contain all the history so that a move to another SCM later is
possible, and 'svn blame' works well
Please note that here's no advantage of switching to SVN for ooo-build
community, so I'll be still pushing DSCM, particularly git ;-) Of course, we
can live even with SVN [we lived with CVS for quite some time], but in fact
nothing will change for us, and we will have to think again of how to solve
the problems described above if the discussion about DSCM closes with 'no'.
Ruediger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
