Le 13/05/2017 à 16:17, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
On 13 May 2017, at 15:51, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 13/05/2017 à 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
I’m not a bit expert, but if you don’t use “metadataless” format
everything works fine with monticello. I.e. each git commit
contains all the mc history.
yes, but with iceberg we did another choice: we force metadataless
and do not keep compatibility with monticello. this is like that by
design: keeping the metadata was too much noise and generated a lot
of conflicts we don’t want.
The metadata-less format was experimented with before Iceberg because we knew
that recreation of MC-compatible metadata out of the vcs log was already
working.
Then FileTree (and MC) was modified to make sure that the metadata-less format
would be compatible with MC.
Now, Iceberg has decided to be non-compatible with MC. But this has nothing to
do with the underlying format.
Iceberg uses filetree metadataless as file format (it uses even the same class
to do the write) so what you are saying is not true ;)
What changes is that instead adding a random cypress.1 we add the a number
which is a timestamp of the commit.
I'd prefer to have the git short commit ID instead. But that is my opinion.
Very little is needed in MC for that numbering to be compatible.
So, using iceberg is not using git as “just another repository format
as http, ftp, etc.”. If you want to keep both versions, then you
need to save in mc format then save again in iceberg (or viceversa).
Which looks clumsy at best and at worse, will make the transition to Iceberg a
pain.
I disagree.
the cost of keeping eternal backward compatibility is not moving forward.
I said nothing about eternal backward compatibility.
It's interesting however that you see 'eternal backward compatibility'
there.
And Peter did a very good tool to easy migrations that respect history.
What Peter did could make the infrastructure a lot better. His tool can
do a lot more than easing the migration.
Also, nobody is forced to use iceberg: you don’t want it, do not use it. You
still have monticello.
For the time being...
Everyone will have to cope with the migration from mcz to Iceberg at one
point. Good luck to us, I guess.
Regards,
Thierry
Thierry
Esteban
Uko
On 13 May 2017, at 09:28, Thierry Goubier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Le 13/05/2017 à 08:58, Stephane Ducasse a écrit :
My gut feeling is that it will be better not to mix git and
MC.
It is easy to make MC compatible with Git.
It wasn't that hard in the past, but needed a community effort
(MC being a core part of the system). Now, with the
infrastructure underway (libgit, git fast-import) it looks very
easy to implement.
Thierry
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Oleksandr Zaytsev
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello
Two days ago I was trying to send the slice with my fix to
PolyMath using Monticello. But the version number got set to
1494471195. Today I realized that all the packages to which I
commit are numbered like that.
Cyril Ferlicot explained to me that this happens when I mix git
and Monticello commits. He suggested that I use a separate
image for committing to GitHub, or file out/file in if there is
a lot of changes to commit.
Can this be considered a bug? Should I report it?
I think it would be causing problems for many people.
Oleks
