Le 04/02/2016 10:04, Nicolas Cellier a écrit :
I don't understand broken history either.
Yes there can be .mcz name clashes but UUID history is stored together
in metadata no?
Yes.
If some tool only trust .mcz name without checking UUID, consider it's a
bug, and let's correct it (there is some in Monticello Configuration Map)
Gofer. In fact, most of Monticello never checks the UUID, only
dependencies do, but this looks like a deprecated feature given how
often it is used.
Or is it the fact that some .mcz could be missing?
Consider this is a feature, MC tools are robust to missing .mcz (it's
just that you'll have to redo the merge if you lost a common ancestor).
What? You really consider that a feature?
Or is it the fact that some repository might contain only a slice of
history?
This is another feature... You can view all the versions in a collection
of repositories without needing to replicate.
Understandable in theory. Unworkable over time and change (repositories
disappear and die, and this stops working)
You can replicate if you want but it's not mandatory and completely
orthogonal.
So yes, this information - the list or repositories you want to consider
- has to be stored separetely and this can sound quite unconventional.
But IMO, it's an important feature: it gives much resilience for a very
low investment.
And that also mean that you can hardly break things (have unconsistent
history).
Maybe when you say broken, you mean not 100% git compatible?
No, what I say is true mcz inconsistent history (missing versions making
merges very unreliable, basically).
I describe a while ago a case where, thanks to mcz features, I couldn't
merge a small change done to Roassal without generating a ton of
conflicts. I moved the three needed mcz(s) to git (the change ancestor,
the change, and the current head), did git merge and had no conflicts.
If you consider those features, then I disagree.
I'd really like to improve MC and get a better integration. Considering
those as features just make me think that Eliot may well be right in
believing we'll end up throwing away MC completely.
Coping with MC idiosyncrasies is hard as it is, and at least a complete
replacement is being considered for Pharo. In the meantime, Cuis has
completely given up managing packages in Smalltalk: all is done in git,
externally.
Thierry
2016-02-04 7:53 GMT+01:00 Thierry Goubier <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Le 03/02/2016 23:58, Dale Henrichs a écrit :
On 02/03/2016 02:34 PM, Thierry Goubier wrote:
Le 03/02/2016 22:51, Eliot Miranda a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Thierry Goubier
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
Hi Eliot,
Le 02/02/2016 21:54, Eliot Miranda a écrit :
....
No it's /not/ the end of the story. The
essential part of the
story is
how Monticello remains compatible and
interoperable between
dialects. I
haven't seen you account for how you maintain that
compatibility. As
far as I can tell, you propose replacing the
Monticello metadata
with
that from git. How do I, as a Squeak user with
Monticello, ever
get to
look at your package again? As I understand
it, moving the
metadata
from Monticello commit time to git means that
the metadata is
in a
format that git determines, not Monticello.
Yes. See below why.
So I don't understand how on the one hand you
can say "The
Monticello
metadata in a git repository is redundant and
leads to
unnecessary
commit conflicts -- end of story ....", which
implies you
want to
eliminate the Monticello metadata, and on the
other hand you say
you're
keeping the Monticello metadata. I'm
hopelessly confused. How
does the
Monticello metadata get reconstituted if it's
been thrown away?
What happens to the metadata in the following
workflow?
load package P from Monticello repository R
into an image
change P, commit via git to local git repository G
load P from G into an image
store P to R via Monticello
It's not a scenario I've specifically worked on,
but all the tech is
implemented / implementable to do that perfectly.
The only thing that is problematic there is that
the only safe
history is the one generated from git... there are
so many MC
packages with broken history that, on mcz packages,
you have to
admit that it's not safe to base things on their
history.
I'm sorry but I don't accept that. In the Squeak trunk
we have history
in our mczs that is correct. Certainly in VMMaker.oscog
I have history
that goes back a long time. If bugs have broken history
then efforts
should be made to repair that history. But you can't
just write off
Monticello history like that.
I don't. You presuppose.
I write tools that work with Monticello repositories, not
just yours.
I have to do with what is given to me. On a general level,
as a mcz
user, I'll just have to consider that you are as susceptible
to be
trusted as with any other mcz producer. This means not much...
... And this is the reason why I am inclined to favor option 3,
which
records the package version history as it existed at the point
it was
copied into a git repo. When copied back out from the git universe,
create a version history that starts with the original version
history
and generates a history of the package in git ....
Which is not very difficult to do given how GitFileTree is
implemented. And I agree this may well be the way to go. But ...
Correct or not, the Monticello version history should be
preserved ....
I wonder about that. The property of the Monticello version history
is that it has value when you can access the versions listed in it.
If you mix repositories like that, unless you maintain a link to the
previous mcz repository, pre-git versions can't be accessed. So,
most of the time, what we do with a project moved under git is to
clone the previous repository, not take just the current head.
(you'll notice, by the way, that vcs usually work that way when
moving from, say, CVS to git - you move the entire repository, not
just the latest version).
In short, the question would really be:
1- should we invest into making that integration of past history a
selling point (but I foresee issues down the road; I've only
described one so far, and I have seen others)
or
2- into making a better "clone" of a package history, timestamps and
everything when moving a complete repository to git?
Honestly, I'd consider 1- to be the easiest to implement. 2- there
is already some code floating around.
Thierry
