Hello, So after some discussion with a few developers, I feel that its time that any issues the group has concerning the development repository need to be resolved, especially since I'm doing a lot of work coalescing a lot of contributions, and there seems to be some concern from some members with respect to the current SVN setup. I'm currently using git for my work, and I'm currently working on two trees:
or1k-src: I started this tree by cvs checkout'ing the sourceware.org src tree (see http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=src), and doing cvs updates in one branch, while keeping my work in another branch. The CVS subdirectories are also watched by git. Whenever I do a cvs update, I rebase my work tree on top of it so my work can always be made into a diff against the upstream tree. So far, I've completed the binutils port to use cgen, and I'm currently working on getting gdb to use cgen (I'd say the gdb part is halfway done). or1k-gcc: This is a clone of the gcc read-only git tree. The gcc read-only git tree is a git-svn clone of the main gcc svn repo. I periodically rebase my work on top of the upstream, again to make diffs easier. I started off this tree by cloning Giuseppe's gcc tree. So, as I've mentioned, I prefer git, but I understand some devs and many users prefer svn. Git has the advantage of making tracking an upstream tree simple (via rebasing), while svn AFAIK does not. However, git does have decent svn interoperability, so that gives us a couple of options: 1. The central repo can still be svn, and users/devs wishing to use git can use git-svn to pull/push changes. 2. (My preference.) The central repo can use git, and a read-only svn mirror can be provided by using a cron job to push changes from the git repo into the svn repo. This keeps it simple for users who don't care about making changes and are accustomed to SVN, but still want to keep the most recent version of everything. Devs would be best off changing to git. I think this would be the best way to handle the or1k-src repo (which tracks a CVS upstream), because trying to make 3 different VC tools work together will be a nightmare. More complicated things can be done, too: http://kris.me.uk/2010/10/01/svn-master-with-git-mirrors.html There's also subgit which can be used to keep a git repo and svn repo continuously synced with each other, but it's not OSS. Whatever choice is made, I feel we should start fresh. I have a few reasons to think so, but the primary one is that the current structure of the SVN repo with everything under trunk/ isn't very good. By the way, can we please keep this discussion tame and free from accusations and flames? My intent is not to start a flame war with all this. :) -Pete _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
