Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
Hi Stephan, the integration of a CWSs will usually happen in a single step, so it's principally not possible to attach single file commit messages to the changed files. But we can have a kind of Changlog attached to the integration revision with the logs of every commit together with the files names (paths). I'm not sure if people will really want this, but if we have the need it can be done. As for the integration of CWS which were started in CVS, if it really bothers you that the comments are not migrated I can implement something along the above mentioned line. I would need a script which extracts the comments from CVS, collect them in a file and attach this file as integration comment. I guess I need two days or so for scripting and it might slightly delay the integration of your CWS. Is this OK for you? Heiner Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 08/28/08 16:01, Jörg Jahnke wrote: Hi, Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb: Martin Hollmichel wrote: Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Martin, since almost all OOO300 CWSs (for the RC) will be integrated into DEV300 as well it makes sense to have most of them already integrated into DEV300 before starting the migration. Also there are some quite huge CWSs currently in the queue which will go into DEV300 today or in the next few days. The current plan is to have all the cws for 3.0 rc ready this week (today or tomorrow). Currently it looks like that DEV300 m31 (the next DEV300 milestone) could be a good basis for migration. yes, but I think we should coordinate and announce this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok. So are there objections against starting the migration directly after DEV300 m31 gets finished? Otherwise we (Hamburg RE) would start at that time. I should add that ideally any CWSs with greater changes that are finished already should make it into m31 to avoid unncessary work. There is http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fsb93 which touches quite a number of files and should go into QA tomorrow. Not sure whether it is worth waiting for it, though---those who have to do the actual migration work may have an opinion here. (However, what would disappoint me somewhat is if the CWS's carefully written CVS commit comments were effectively lost, for example in case the CWS is not integrated into the final CVS HEAD revision but only into some SVN revision other than the initial one---that the corresponding SVN revision contains changes for which commit comments can be found by looking at a specific CWS branch tag in the corresponding CVS file log is so much more obscure than if the commit comments can be found by looking at the last HEAD entry in the corresponding CVS file log.) -Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
Heiner convinced me off-line that the current approach already does allow to reconstruct all commit comments relevant for a given file with modest effort. -Stephan On 08/29/08 12:35, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Stephan, the integration of a CWSs will usually happen in a single step, so it's principally not possible to attach single file commit messages to the changed files. But we can have a kind of Changlog attached to the integration revision with the logs of every commit together with the files names (paths). I'm not sure if people will really want this, but if we have the need it can be done. As for the integration of CWS which were started in CVS, if it really bothers you that the comments are not migrated I can implement something along the above mentioned line. I would need a script which extracts the comments from CVS, collect them in a file and attach this file as integration comment. I guess I need two days or so for scripting and it might slightly delay the integration of your CWS. Is this OK for you? Heiner Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 08/28/08 16:01, Jörg Jahnke wrote: Hi, Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb: Martin Hollmichel wrote: Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Martin, since almost all OOO300 CWSs (for the RC) will be integrated into DEV300 as well it makes sense to have most of them already integrated into DEV300 before starting the migration. Also there are some quite huge CWSs currently in the queue which will go into DEV300 today or in the next few days. The current plan is to have all the cws for 3.0 rc ready this week (today or tomorrow). Currently it looks like that DEV300 m31 (the next DEV300 milestone) could be a good basis for migration. yes, but I think we should coordinate and announce this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok. So are there objections against starting the migration directly after DEV300 m31 gets finished? Otherwise we (Hamburg RE) would start at that time. I should add that ideally any CWSs with greater changes that are finished already should make it into m31 to avoid unncessary work. There is http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fsb93 which touches quite a number of files and should go into QA tomorrow. Not sure whether it is worth waiting for it, though---those who have to do the actual migration work may have an opinion here. (However, what would disappoint me somewhat is if the CWS's carefully written CVS commit comments were effectively lost, for example in case the CWS is not integrated into the final CVS HEAD revision but only into some SVN revision other than the initial one---that the corresponding SVN revision contains changes for which commit comments can be found by looking at a specific CWS branch tag in the corresponding CVS file log is so much more obscure than if the commit comments can be found by looking at the last HEAD entry in the corresponding CVS file log.) -Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
Hi, Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb: Martin Hollmichel wrote: Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Martin, since almost all OOO300 CWSs (for the RC) will be integrated into DEV300 as well it makes sense to have most of them already integrated into DEV300 before starting the migration. Also there are some quite huge CWSs currently in the queue which will go into DEV300 today or in the next few days. The current plan is to have all the cws for 3.0 rc ready this week (today or tomorrow). Currently it looks like that DEV300 m31 (the next DEV300 milestone) could be a good basis for migration. yes, but I think we should coordinate and announce this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok. So are there objections against starting the migration directly after DEV300 m31 gets finished? Otherwise we (Hamburg RE) would start at that time. I should add that ideally any CWSs with greater changes that are finished already should make it into m31 to avoid unncessary work. Regards, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
Hi Jörg, *, On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Jörg Jahnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So are there objections against starting the migration directly after DEV300 m31 gets finished? I'd appreciate if I would get any answer on the two questions posted by me on this list: svnsync performance and svn client requirements for developers. ciao Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
On 08/28/08 16:01, Jörg Jahnke wrote: Hi, Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb: Martin Hollmichel wrote: Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Martin, since almost all OOO300 CWSs (for the RC) will be integrated into DEV300 as well it makes sense to have most of them already integrated into DEV300 before starting the migration. Also there are some quite huge CWSs currently in the queue which will go into DEV300 today or in the next few days. The current plan is to have all the cws for 3.0 rc ready this week (today or tomorrow). Currently it looks like that DEV300 m31 (the next DEV300 milestone) could be a good basis for migration. yes, but I think we should coordinate and announce this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok. So are there objections against starting the migration directly after DEV300 m31 gets finished? Otherwise we (Hamburg RE) would start at that time. I should add that ideally any CWSs with greater changes that are finished already should make it into m31 to avoid unncessary work. There is http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fsb93 which touches quite a number of files and should go into QA tomorrow. Not sure whether it is worth waiting for it, though---those who have to do the actual migration work may have an opinion here. (However, what would disappoint me somewhat is if the CWS's carefully written CVS commit comments were effectively lost, for example in case the CWS is not integrated into the final CVS HEAD revision but only into some SVN revision other than the initial one---that the corresponding SVN revision contains changes for which commit comments can be found by looking at a specific CWS branch tag in the corresponding CVS file log is so much more obscure than if the commit comments can be found by looking at the last HEAD entry in the corresponding CVS file log.) -Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
Martin Hollmichel wrote: Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Martin, since almost all OOO300 CWSs (for the RC) will be integrated into DEV300 as well it makes sense to have most of them already integrated into DEV300 before starting the migration. Also there are some quite huge CWSs currently in the queue which will go into DEV300 today or in the next few days. The current plan is to have all the cws for 3.0 rc ready this week (today or tomorrow). Currently it looks like that DEV300 m31 (the next DEV300 milestone) could be a good basis for migration. yes, but I think we should coordinate and announce this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok. I would suggest that we wait until DEV300 m31 is done and finished and then start the migration. If all goes well this could be next Monday and DEV300 m32 would already be on Subversion (expected about a week later). I think we could also have the necessary documentation in place when DEV300 m32 is published. how many days of SCM outage are you calculating for the migration ? Will there be the possibility to work still on open cws during the migration ? Will there be an outtage for CVS or will just be the committing to HEAD be forbidden ? There will be no outage for CVS at all (one of the major reasons for going with the trunk only approach). Just release engineering will refrain from integration on trunk (HEAD) during migration, no one else should be committing there anyway (the exception being new modules which will be handled separately). The OOO300 code line is not affected at all. I would reconsider the plan if someone steps up with a CWS nominated for DEV300 m32 with hundreds of changed files. In this case it would make sense to throw in another CVS based milestone, just to save ourselves a bit of work. What are developers required to do with their open cws during the migration ? During migration? Nothing special, developers can just work on them as usual. When they are done with a CWS, we'll ask the developer to resync their CWS to the latest CVS milestone. We (that is Release Engineering) will create a patch from the CVS branch and apply it either directly to the latest SVN milestone (thus integrate it) or create a (CWS)-branch on the first SVN milestone for further resyncing with the latest SVN milestone. The first option is of course for nominated CWSs without to many conflicts, the second one for complicated CWSs or ones where the developer wants to resume developing via SVN. I guess we'll need a hand here and there from developers but it shouldn't be that bad. Please note that we have a soft dependency on the RC. Since CWSs which are meant for OOO300 can only be opened in CVS, we'll need to manually merge then into SVN for DEV300. The simple double integration trick we usually use to propagate the fixes between different masters doesn't work in this case. Will not be a problem for a few small CWSs and because the majority of the CWSs is already integrated I do not worry to much about then. Heiner Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: Jörg Jahnke wrote: Hi, due to the trunk-only migration mentioned below, we do no longer have a dependency on the first release candidate of OOo 3.0, which is done on the OOO300 branch. At the same time, Heiner is ready to start the migration. So do we want to start the migration now i.e. prior to the RC? from my point of we don't need to wait for the release candidate to proceed with the migration as we decided to go with the trunk migration only (see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Scm_migration_scope). If nobody objects I would ask you to provide a concrete plan for the migration starting asap. Regards, Jörg Martin Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb: Hi, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Guido, the migration is going nicely along. We do plan to migrate after the 3.0 RC. - We've got a box, a Sun Fire 4150 (8 cores, 64 GB RAM, no less). The URL will be svn.services.openoffice.org. An updated test repository will be on that machine RSN. - We'll use Subversion 1.5.1, that is with the build in merge tracking - The ESC council decided after some debate about the migration scope, aka how much history do we want (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Scm_migration_scope) We will go along with option c) trunk only, this will also help with later DSCM options. Some asked, so I probably should explain it in a bit more detail what we mean with trunk only migration: - only history on the main development line (trunk) will be migrated, thus no branches and tags - we'll migrate only files which are still active (nothing from the CVS Attic directories) - binary files will be pruned to the last version - Localization files (*.sdf) will be pruned to the last version Existing branches will be maintained in CVS. This includes the OOO300 branch, on which OpenOffice.org 3.0 will be released. Heiner
Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
On 08/27/08 16:00, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Please note that we have a soft dependency on the RC. Since CWSs which are meant for OOO300 can only be opened in CVS, we'll need to manually merge then into SVN for DEV300. The simple double integration trick we usually use to propagate the fixes between different masters doesn't work in this case. Will not be a problem for a few small CWSs and because the majority of the CWSs is already integrated I do not worry to much about then. Just wondering: Will CWSs targeting OOo 3.0.1 be handled on CVS branch OOO300 (and thus have to be copied manually to SVN in order to be included in OOo 3.1)? -Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [council-esc] Re: [tools-dev] OOo SCM project
Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 08/27/08 16:00, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Please note that we have a soft dependency on the RC. Since CWSs which are meant for OOO300 can only be opened in CVS, we'll need to manually merge then into SVN for DEV300. The simple double integration trick we usually use to propagate the fixes between different masters doesn't work in this case. Will not be a problem for a few small CWSs and because the majority of the CWSs is already integrated I do not worry to much about then. Just wondering: Will CWSs targeting OOo 3.0.1 be handled on CVS branch OOO300 (and thus have to be copied manually to SVN in order to be included in OOo 3.1)? OOo-3.0.1 will be handled on OOO300 (or maybe something like OOA300 or so) and thus in CVS for now. But, at some later stage, maybe around end of the year the OOO branch will be moved to a standalone branch to SVN so that we can switch CVS r/o Heiner -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
