Hi Greg,
On 06/29/2011 05:27 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 05:42, Jens-Heiner Rechtien<[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/27/2011 01:08 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
...
Merging them in hg is easy, just pull/merge. But ... we are talking about
a
hundred or so CWSs here. In all kinds of readiness states.
http://hg.services.openoffice.org
If we merge them now, we won't have a working OOo for a long time. Now,
we
could skip the merge part and leave the heads "dangling". Hg heads are
kinda
That's what I was thinking. And then map these "dangling" heads to
individual branches in svn.
anonymous branches in Mercurial. Don't know if a repository with multiple
heads can be converted to SVN. Probably quite tricky (the tool would need
to
generate sensible names for the different heads).
If the converter tool doesn't have the feature, it seems pretty
straight-forward to add code to either provide a name mapping for
them, or auto-generate names.
The anonymous heads could be marked with the cws name as a mercurial
bookmark, just after the individual pull step. That way the information is
at least already in the all-in-one hg repository. A smart converter could
use them to generate svn branch names. Something along this lines:
$ cd<all-in-one-respository>
$ hg pull ../cws/os151
... the latest changeset of CWS os151 is now tip
$ hg bookmark -r tip os151
$ hg bookmarks
os151 276718:f4d674e63830
....
Great. Thanks for the pointers.
I'm going to start updating the single-hg.sh (see tools/dev/) with
this stuff. I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye on the commits and
correct me where I stray. I've never used Mercurial before.
Will do.
I've read up on the difference between: tags, branches, local tags,
and bookmarks. I agree that it seems bookmarks are appropriate for
this purpose. We could technically use a tag since no further work
would be done in this "single" repository. However, we may be able to
use the bookmarks as an indicator for branch construction (vs a static
copy in tags/).
I suspect that a lot of work will happen on the Convert extension to
Mercurial to manage this transition :-)
One more thing... I cloned one of the CWSs (ab78), and it was 2.8 Gb.
My clone of DEV300 is 3.5 Gb. Is the size of that CWS typical? There
are about 250 CWSs hosted at OOo. If the average holds, I would need
to clone 700 Gb of material down to my system to perform the
integration.
Several posters already answered this one, just let me add that the
first 263206 revisions on all repositories are guaranteed identical, no
need to ever download them twice over the wire. Actually almost all the
open CWSs contain only very few new changesets, and that's all you need
to pull.
If you got a copy of DEV300 or OOO340 on your system you could either
pull all the stuff in one repository resulting in having one head per
CWS or create one repository per CWS with:
$ hg clone -U DEV300 <foo> <- uses hardlinks on Unix
$ cd foo
$ hg pull .../cws/<foo
Which approach is better depends on how you want to proceed.
The OOo mercurial server hg.services.openoffice.org keeps all the
currently open CWSs in less than 400 GB diskspace, but there hardlinks
are only used during CWS creation. With perfect hardlinking it will be
significantly less. An all in one repository will be around 2.5 GiB plus
1.7 GiB or so for the working tree.
Heiner
--
Jens-Heiner Rechtien
