Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Patryk Zawadzki]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:34:47PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:18 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about
>> > CoC, I don't like you're talking to me.
>> Please. Stop trying to make this look like it's personal and like I'm
>> assaulting you. Because I didn't. And I resent the accusation.
> You ask "Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve
> is a terrible idea". As I don't find it terrible, the statement makes me
> feel like I'm considered an idiot for disagreeing. Then when I try to
> point that out, I get "Oh, you chose not to quote that"... anyway, I'm
> dropping this.

Guys please both exchange a series of "yo mama" jokes in private then
have a beer and shake your hands. It's obvious some of us get excited
as it *is* a beauty contest we're participating in even if we paint it
as a survey. It's normal and it's fine, just don't let personal taste
win over GNOME. We're mostly engineers and we're here to build bike
sheds, not to paint them. :)

I really really like git but I couldn't care less if we switched to
any of the things I picked over svn ;)

-- 
Patryk Zawadzki
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Ruben Vermeersch]

On ma, 2009-01-05 at 12:32 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
> On 1/5/09, Johannes Schmid  wrote:
> >
> > 6. Check all the documentation stuff on live.gnome.org that needs to be
> >  updated. That is really important because not everybody is familiar with
> >  git. There should also be a short introduction to git somewhere on the
> >  wiki. And some announcements should probably be made...
> >
> 
> And perhaps explain the benefits and cool stuff, if we are moving to
> !svn, we should take advantage of the new cool stuff introduced...
> that's where something like Federico's proposal to use gitorious fit.

Yes, rather than fighting over the backend storage format, let's focus
on making our developer experience better. Having a gitorious instance
for all of GNOME (our own github, powered by free & open-source software
[1]), will make collaboration much easier, as well as cover
infrastructure problems.


[1]: http://gitorious.org/projects/gitorious


--
Ruben Vermeersch (rubenv)
http://www.savanne.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Diego Escalante Urrelo]

On 1/5/09, Johannes Schmid  wrote:
>
> 6. Check all the documentation stuff on live.gnome.org that needs to be
>  updated. That is really important because not everybody is familiar with
>  git. There should also be a short introduction to git somewhere on the
>  wiki. And some announcements should probably be made...
>

And perhaps explain the benefits and cool stuff, if we are moving to
!svn, we should take advantage of the new cool stuff introduced...
that's where something like Federico's proposal to use gitorious fit.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:34:47PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:18 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about
> > CoC, I don't like you're talking to me.
> 
> Please. Stop trying to make this look like it's personal and like I'm
> assaulting you. Because I didn't. And I resent the accusation.

You ask "Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve
is a terrible idea". As I don't find it terrible, the statement makes me
feel like I'm considered an idiot for disagreeing. Then when I try to
point that out, I get "Oh, you chose not to quote that"... anyway, I'm
dropping this.

I'm not saying you're assaulting me (way too strong). I just don't like
the tone.

but suggest offline if needed (in hindsight, probably should've done
that right away). Only replying on list to make clear to everyone that I
didn't think you were assaulting.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Johannes Schmid]

Hi!

Am Montag, den 05.01.2009, 16:23 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann:
> First of all I want to thank Behdad and the participants of the survey
> for giving us numbers.
> 
> Second I want to complain about the direction this discussion takes.
> No idea why that many people become personal. This is really unpleasant.
> 
> Third of all: What so complicated about this migration? As far as I see,
> the migration consists of the following steps, please tell me if I am
> too naive:
> 
>  1. Identify admin scripts that must be ported from svn to git. So
> far I only know new-svn-repos.
>  2. Identify commit hooks which have to be ported. Should only
> global hooks be ported, or would the migration team also be
> responsible for porting module specific hooks?
>  3. Actually port the commit hooks.
>  4. Create snapshots of all SVN repositories using git-svn.
>  5. Now finish one repository after another:
>  1. Mark the SVN repository as read-only.
>  2. Run a final git-svn rebase.
>  3. Maybe strip git-svn information.
>  4. Install commit hooks.
>  5. Test the new git repository.
>  6. Make the new git repository public.
> 
> Am I missing something?

6. Check all the documentation stuff on live.gnome.org that needs to be
updated. That is really important because not everybody is familiar with
git. There should also be a short introduction to git somewhere on the
wiki. And some announcements should probably be made...

Regards,
Johannes


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Mathias Hasselmann]

First of all I want to thank Behdad and the participants of the survey
for giving us numbers.

Second I want to complain about the direction this discussion takes.
No idea why that many people become personal. This is really unpleasant.

Third of all: What so complicated about this migration? As far as I see,
the migration consists of the following steps, please tell me if I am
too naive:

 1. Identify admin scripts that must be ported from svn to git. So
far I only know new-svn-repos.
 2. Identify commit hooks which have to be ported. Should only
global hooks be ported, or would the migration team also be
responsible for porting module specific hooks?
 3. Actually port the commit hooks.
 4. Create snapshots of all SVN repositories using git-svn.
 5. Now finish one repository after another:
 1. Mark the SVN repository as read-only.
 2. Run a final git-svn rebase.
 3. Maybe strip git-svn information.
 4. Install commit hooks.
 5. Test the new git repository.
 6. Make the new git repository public.

Am I missing something?

  * Steps one and two have to be done by the current SVN admins.
  * Step three is a programming task and therefore can be done by
each GNOME hacker knowing the programming languages used.
  * Step four rounds automatically and just needs some watching.
  * Step five could be done in parallel.

So is it really true, that we don't have the man power to do this
migration? I cannot believe this.

Ciao,
Mathias
-- 
Mathias Hasselmann 
http://taschenorakel.de/mathias/, http://www.openismus.com/

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:00:52AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> I'd like to help with another path forward, namely native git
> repositories since I believe that is what most of the community wants.
>  As you said, it isn't clear how it could work for non-sysadmins to
> come up with clear proposal strategies and implementations.  Are there
> others on the sysadmin team who are willing to work on such a
> transition?  If so, how can I help?

Don't know if there are other sysadmins who'd work on this. I've cc'ed
gnome-sysadmin so that people can answer themselves instead of me
guessing.


I'll let John reply on all other questions.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Natan Yellin]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Felipe Contreras  wrote:

> 2009/1/5 Ali Sabil :
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> >> > Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe
> that
> >> > the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
> >> > crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
> >> > *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.
> >>
> >> That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
> >> Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry for not being clear in my explanations. Basically, as Olav pointed
> > out, it is about having Bazaar on the server, with a git-serve plugin
> > allowing it to fulfill the git client requests as well as the bzr client
> > requests.
> >
> > The following scenarios will be possible:
> > (bzr repo) <-> (git serve plugin) <- network ---> (git
> client)
> > (bzr repo) <-> (bzr serve) <- network ---> (bzr client)
> >
> > both bzr and git will operate fully, nothing will be partially supported,
> > since the bazaar repository format is a superset of the git repo format
> (ie.
> > it stores more metadata).
> >
> > I talked about hg, just to highlight that the solution is quite future
> > proof, because you can certainly apply the same solution to allow hg
> clients
> > to access the repository.
>
> First of all, who is going to develop and maintain the "git serve
> plugin"? Whoever does it I bet the end result won't be as good as the
> native git. Emulators tend to behave differently from the native
> counterpart.
>
> Second, as David mentioned; what would happen in the case the git
> protocol is updated and backward compatibility is removed? We will
> need to wait until the "git serve plugin" is updated, possibly
> rewritten.
>
> Third, every repository format has advantages and drawbacks. So far it
> looks like the git repository format works for most people, what is
> the need to avoid it?
>
> Fourth, we should not re-invent the wheel, people use either bzr or
> git, and not both for a reason; depending on a theoretical "git serve
> plugin" is just asking for trouble.
>
The way I understood the proposal, bazaar would be the official dvcs and a
usable- albeit officially unsupported- git wrapper would be provided.

Assuming that a future version of git doesn't introduce incompatibilities,
the approach has the advantage of being an easy solution which works for all
git and bazaar users. If a future version of git _is_ incompatible, the
official bazaar access would be totally unaffected.

That said, according to the survey most people use git. Most of those users
don't care about bazaar access at all, but might be slightly irritated if
there are any quirks with the git wrapper.

If you'd like to try to make everyone happy then the wrapper approach has
it's advantages. If you'd rather make a small group slightly annoyed and a
bigger group totally happy then go with git.

>
> Fifth, if the majority of the GNOME community prefers git, why degrade
> the git experience with an emulation? It makes much more sense for the
> bzr minority to emulate bzr experience with bzr-git if so they desire.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-l...@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
-Natan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Felipe Contreras]

2009/1/5 Ali Sabil :
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
>> > Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
>> > the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
>> > crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
>> > *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.
>>
>> That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
>> Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.
>>
>
> Sorry for not being clear in my explanations. Basically, as Olav pointed
> out, it is about having Bazaar on the server, with a git-serve plugin
> allowing it to fulfill the git client requests as well as the bzr client
> requests.
>
> The following scenarios will be possible:
> (bzr repo) <-> (git serve plugin) <- network ---> (git client)
> (bzr repo) <-> (bzr serve) <- network ---> (bzr client)
>
> both bzr and git will operate fully, nothing will be partially supported,
> since the bazaar repository format is a superset of the git repo format (ie.
> it stores more metadata).
>
> I talked about hg, just to highlight that the solution is quite future
> proof, because you can certainly apply the same solution to allow hg clients
> to access the repository.

First of all, who is going to develop and maintain the "git serve
plugin"? Whoever does it I bet the end result won't be as good as the
native git. Emulators tend to behave differently from the native
counterpart.

Second, as David mentioned; what would happen in the case the git
protocol is updated and backward compatibility is removed? We will
need to wait until the "git serve plugin" is updated, possibly
rewritten.

Third, every repository format has advantages and drawbacks. So far it
looks like the git repository format works for most people, what is
the need to avoid it?

Fourth, we should not re-invent the wheel, people use either bzr or
git, and not both for a reason; depending on a theoretical "git serve
plugin" is just asking for trouble.

Fifth, if the majority of the GNOME community prefers git, why degrade
the git experience with an emulation? It makes much more sense for the
bzr minority to emulate bzr experience with bzr-git if so they desire.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Rob Taylor]

Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
>> That isn't a contest. It is a survey.
> 
> Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need
> to get defensive.
> 
> 
>>>  It
>>> seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general
>> I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is
>> somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin
>> time is not so important.
> 
> Thank you for voicing your opinion.
> 
> 
>>> just all move on?
>> Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about
>> people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are
>> incomplete.
> 
> I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the
> subset of  4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr.
> 
> 
>> Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st
>> 50% of the time, etc). But if you say "move on", how do you think a
>> switch is made? Magic?
> 
> Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot.
> 
> 
>> Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a
>> proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
>> suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they
>> want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be
>> chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
>> ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).
> 
> John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As
> stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded,
> bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format:
> 
> http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172
> 
> Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves
> aren't supported?
> 
> It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr,
> Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I
> mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've
> wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that
> came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why
> are we letting them derail this process?

I have to say, that's the first time I've ever been called vocal! I
think you over estimate a) how much I've said on the issue and b) how
much I care.

Have a nice day,
Rob

> Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be,
> in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful.
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-l...@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


-- 
Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. - http://codethink.co.uk
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Cody Russell]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:16 +0100, Robin Sonefors wrote:
> >   How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? I heard (don't
> know
> > if it's true or not) git repo usually takes less diskspace then svn
> > checkout. This page seems to support this claim:
> 
> A complete git repo is usually smaller than a complete SVN one
> (according to "common knowlege" - as in, I didn't run any benchmarks),
> but one commonly only checks out the /trunk subdirectory in
> subversion,
> while git usually checks out the whole project history, including all
> branches - it could be a substantial amount of data you don't check
> out
> with SVN.

I think Zeeshan is talking about working copies, not repositories.  An
svn working copy stores two complete copies of each file in the repo;
one is the one that you see and edit, and one is in .svn/text-base

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Patryk Zawadzki]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
>> Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
>> the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
>> crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
>> *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.
> That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
> Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.

The potential problem I see is all of the remote branches will use
different DVCS that do not support git + hg + bzr. So eventually all
of us will be forced to use all three tools in order to merge changes
from remote branches (unless we expect *all* people to provide *all*
changes as patches in which case I don't see the real gain of
switching to a distributed tool).

-- 
Patryk Zawadzki
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Robin Sonefors]

On sön, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Luca Ferretti  wrote:
> > Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
> >
> >> It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> >> not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> >> gnome.
> >
> > BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order
> > to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from
> > git needs ~740MB :-/
> 
>   How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? I heard (don't know
> if it's true or not) git repo usually takes less diskspace then svn
> checkout. This page seems to support this claim:

A complete git repo is usually smaller than a complete SVN one
(according to "common knowlege" - as in, I didn't run any benchmarks),
but one commonly only checks out the /trunk subdirectory in subversion,
while git usually checks out the whole project history, including all
branches - it could be a substantial amount of data you don't check out
with SVN.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Luca Ferretti]

Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 23.58 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) ha
scritto:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Luca Ferretti  wrote:
> > Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
> >
> >> It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> >> not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> >> gnome.
> >
> > BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order
> > to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from
> > git needs ~740MB :-/
> 
>   How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? 

Note that 740MB is the size of source stuff + build stuff (moreover, but
I'm not sure, WebKit duplicates some source file at build time).

The size of "fresh" checkout is 575MB (see attached file for `du -ch`
details)
8.0K./.git/refs/heads
4.0K./.git/refs/tags
16K ./.git/refs/remotes/origin
20K ./.git/refs/remotes
40K ./.git/refs
4.0K./.git/branches
8.0K./.git/info
48K ./.git/hooks
456M./.git/objects/pack
4.0K./.git/objects/info
36K ./.git/objects/ef
20K ./.git/objects/0f
16K ./.git/objects/28
60K ./.git/objects/b9
60K ./.git/objects/ad
1000K   ./.git/objects/a4
16K ./.git/objects/dc
40K ./.git/objects/9e
16K ./.git/objects/c5
36K ./.git/objects/90
556K./.git/objects/9d
228K./.git/objects/fb
40K ./.git/objects/bd
392K./.git/objects/14
68K ./.git/objects/7d
548K./.git/objects/62
348K./.git/objects/d5
40K ./.git/objects/d6
28K ./.git/objects/51
368K./.git/objects/df
444K./.git/objects/ae
24K ./.git/objects/77
528K./.git/objects/fd
40K ./.git/objects/a5
28K ./.git/objects/63
32K ./.git/objects/eb
268K./.git/objects/27
68K ./.git/objects/6f
552K./.git/objects/a2
24K ./.git/objects/da
360K./.git/objects/a8
308K./.git/objects/bb
72K ./.git/objects/e9
768K./.git/objects/53
20K ./.git/objects/91
20K ./.git/objects/f0
56K ./.git/objects/b7
52K ./.git/objects/13
136K./.git/objects/61
216K./.git/objects/45
364K./.git/objects/d8
332K./.git/objects/2e
132K./.git/objects/c2
228K./.git/objects/00
600K./.git/objects/f2
508K./.git/objects/db
408K./.git/objects/73
1.2M./.git/objects/f4
72K ./.git/objects/67
44K ./.git/objects/2d
224K./.git/objects/83
212K./.git/objects/8e
40K ./.git/objects/b0
220K./.git/objects/65
380K./.git/objects/9a
68K ./.git/objects/81
180K./.git/objects/22
44K ./.git/objects/d2
40K ./.git/objects/2a
88K ./.git/objects/a6
32K ./.git/objects/42
48K ./.git/objects/3b
112K./.git/objects/48
24K ./.git/objects/7b
56K ./.git/objects/76
36K ./.git/objects/9b
508K./.git/objects/6e
152K./.git/objects/fe
268K./.git/objects/c6
216K./.git/objects/8b
48K ./.git/objects/3f
360K./.git/objects/5b
76K ./.git/objects/b5
20K ./.git/objects/37
768K./.git/objects/6b
28K ./.git/objects/f6
352K./.git/objects/39
564K./.git/objects/17
68K ./.git/objects/5e
64K ./.git/objects/1f
360K./.git/objects/ac
36K ./.git/objects/24
32K ./.git/objects/ee
24K ./.git/objects/29
24K ./.git/objects/78
24K ./.git/objects/70
380K./.git/objects/fc
104K./.git/objects/72
64K ./.git/objects/8d
348K./.git/objects/6a
24K ./.git/objects/e6
28K ./.git/objects/bc
24K ./.git/objects/94
100K./.git/objects/59
420K./.git/objects/4b
24K ./.git/objects/ce
40K ./.git/objects/f5
24K ./.git/objects/1b
268K./.git/objects/4a
24K ./.git/objects/d4
36K ./.git/objects/03
220K./.git/objects/e5
28K ./.git/objects/33
40K ./.git/objects/aa
32K ./.git/objects/e1
76K ./.git/objects/f9
488K./.git/objects/ba
24K ./.git/objects/dd
48K ./.git/objects/c0
368K./.git/objects/ab
364K./.git/objects/26
352K./.git/objects/0d
32K ./.git/objects/01
332K./.git/objects/a1
44K ./.git/objects/97
28K ./.git/objects/38
52K ./.git/objects/cb
36K ./.git/objects/6c
92K ./.git/objects/74
24K ./.git/objects/ca
20K ./.git/objects/5a
604K./.git/objects/9c
360K./.git/objects/54
220K./.git/objects/1c
228K./.git/objects/d3
28K ./.git/objects/68
420K./.git/objects/19
32K ./.git/objects/43
264K./.git/objects/c9
316K./.git/objects/89
20K ./.git/objects/95
380K./.git/objects/ec
24K ./.git/objects/4d
332K./.git/objects/5c
280K./.git/objects/d7
112K./.git/objects/58
88K ./.git/objects/e7
24K ./.git/objects/3e
344K./.git/objects/69
28K ./.git/objects/40
16K ./.git/objects/cd
28K ./.git/objects/7c
28K ./.git/objects/cf
24K ./.git/objects/09
28K ./.git/objects/c1
28K ./.git/objects/cc
388K./.git/objects/e4
20K ./.git/objects/e3
56K ./.git/objects/12
36K ./.git/objects/99
336K./.g

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Marko Anastasov]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Luca Ferretti  wrote:
> People using JHBuild to develop one project against latest code or
> simply testing the whole desktop don't need the full history for all
> GNOME Desktop modules
>
> bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git?

git-clone has a --depth option [0] to perform shallow clones up to
a certain number of revisions.

   Marko

[0] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-clone.html
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Luca Ferretti]

Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:

> It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> gnome.

BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order
to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from
git needs ~740MB :-/

People using JHBuild to develop one project against latest code or
simply testing the whole desktop don't need the full history for all
GNOME Desktop modules

bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git?


[1]
http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/bzr.dev/en/user-guide/index.html#getting-a-lightweight-checkout

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Elijah Newren]

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a
> proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
> suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they
> want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be
> chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
> ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).
>
> [1] or whomever. Although I don't see how that would work.

While I'm sure John will at least be able to get basic functionality
working, and the project has a certain amount of cool geek factor,
taking John's proposal as a path forward concerns many in the
community for a variety of reasons[*1].  (In fact, I bet such an
option would rank lower than any native vcs option had it been
included in the survey.)

I'd like to help with another path forward, namely native git
repositories since I believe that is what most of the community wants.
 As you said, it isn't clear how it could work for non-sysadmins to
come up with clear proposal strategies and implementations.  Are there
others on the sysadmin team who are willing to work on such a
transition?  If so, how can I help?

Elijah


[*1] Reasons I've seen or can think of off the top of my head:
* As James H. mentioned on John's blog, you'd likely end up with "the
intersection of the features of the two version control systems rather
than improving things."
* John's project does not have a large community behind it and
supporting it.  In fact, it may end up with a bus factor of 1[*2].
Even if it increases, it doesn't have the kind of large community
that, say, git-svn has.  In general, it's unsettling to many to adopt
a project without a large community behind it.
* John's bridge would have to be updated whenever either the bzr or
git formats changed (in particular, bzr has changed repository formats
several times and even promotes it's ability to seamlessly change
repository formats as an advantage), or whenever the network protocols
changed (including protocol extensions, such as the git push
tell-me-more extension).
* It would introduce extra lag between when new features become
available, since the bridge would need to be updated for each such
change.
* There's no guarantee bzr and git will change in ways that will make
them remain compatible, so we run the risk of accepting (additional)
feature losses as time goes on.  It may be a small risk, but we simply
don't know and have no way of knowing.
* All software has bugs.  John's bridge can't be exempt, and
particularly as new and not-yet-tested software, it's more of a risk.
Will that mean data loss?  Loss of features?  Inability to perform
certain operations?  While the bugs are being investigated and fixed,
what do maintainers do?  Use bzr since it's the official format?  I
think John's pretty clever and that we would likely avoid most such
issues -- but there's no guarantee and this is something that affects
developers daily work.
* I believe bzr proponents even admit that bzr is still slow for
network operations.  John's bridge would essentially add another layer
on top of that.

[*2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Julien PUYDT]

Ali Sabil a écrit :

That's not what John's proposal is about ! John wants to use the bzr format
as a repository format, and add a git-serve plugin to bzr to be able to
"talk" to the git clients. In other words, you will be able to access the
same data using either bzr, git or hg.


Well, if people say "git" and your answer is "bzr with a git frontend", 
then why don't we stick with svn on the server and let people use 
git-svn if they please ?


When I want to ride my bike, I don't install a new pedal system on my 
car : I just use my bike!


Snark

PS: notice that my last comment in the survey was already something like 
this : if switching is too costly or people can't agree on what to 
switch to, then let's keep svn and let people use git-svn, hg-svn, 
bzr-svn, etc-svn.

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[David Zeuthen]

On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:18 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about
> CoC, I don't like you're talking to me.

Please. Stop trying to make this look like it's personal and like I'm
assaulting you. Because I didn't. And I resent the accusation.

 David


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 06:05:30PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > > Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a
> > > terrible idea?
> > 
> > You expect me to reply to this??!?
> 
> I expected you to reply to the other three mails where I asked the same
> thing as I did in the mail you replied to. Oh, you chose not to quote
> that; here it is again:

I chose not to quote that yes, as this is getting too personal for me.
However, I only get more replies back which I consider of terrible
quality.

> > Then what happens when a new version of git with a new feature,
> > incompatible with the git-serve kludge, is released? Then we're
> > screwed, right? And who gets to pay? We do. We're stuck with an old
> > version of git. Us. The very same people who very clearly said "git",
> > not "bzr".
> 
> But, alas, you didn't reply to this. You instead hand-waved about
> something else. I don't think I breached any code of conduct, written or
> otherwise, by displaying my frustration about how you are evading my
> question.

I am not evading. Stop trying to make this personal. I don't care about
CoC, I don't like you're talking to me.


Anyway, I've already asked John to respond to your point as he is doing
the work. I did that before replying to you. This as I thought he would
give the best answer.
My answer: well, AFAIK, the communication stuff is very generic, so
breakage is unlikely. Further, that is why John becomes a sysadmin. Feel
free to rewrite my answer as needed.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:04:30AM +0100, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> > not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> > gnome.
> 
> I totally agree here! This is simply a problem of QA. If someone writes
> a system that can serve all possible (D)VCS clients that's fine but this

That is not what is proposed.

> won't happen tommorow and I will need a huge amount of time to be
> finished and tested. And in addition it's unlikely that such a system

Proposed solution doesn't take a long time to finish.

> will support more than a common subset of the features of the underlying
> DVCS system.

[..]
> Second, a VCS system is something that just has to work. I doubt many
> people really care a lot about what system they use as long as it does

No need to guess, we can look at the survey.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[David Zeuthen]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a
> > terrible idea?
> 
> You expect me to reply to this??!?

I expected you to reply to the other three mails where I asked the same
thing as I did in the mail you replied to. Oh, you chose not to quote
that; here it is again:

> Then what happens when a new version of git with a new feature,
> incompatible with the git-serve kludge, is released? Then we're
> screwed, right? And who gets to pay? We do. We're stuck with an old
> version of git. Us. The very same people who very clearly said "git",
> not "bzr".

But, alas, you didn't reply to this. You instead hand-waved about
something else. I don't think I breached any code of conduct, written or
otherwise, by displaying my frustration about how you are evading my
question.

David


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Johannes Schmid]

Hi!

> It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> gnome.

I totally agree here! This is simply a problem of QA. If someone writes
a system that can serve all possible (D)VCS clients that's fine but this
won't happen tommorow and I will need a huge amount of time to be
finished and tested. And in addition it's unlikely that such a system
will support more than a common subset of the features of the underlying
DVCS system.

First, be honest, we need to decide which system to use. I have no
preference here, the survey says that most current users prefer git. So
it sounds reasonable to go that way if it doesn't has to much
problematic impact on the infrastructure side.

Second, a VCS system is something that just has to work. I doubt many
people really care a lot about what system they use as long as it does
not cause any problems for them. People familiar to git will easily
learn bzr and the bzr-people will learn git. It's not a good idea to
make this decision too important and to do flame-wars. Probably all
major DVCS fit our needs and it is more a matter of taste. The survey
was a good point to find out the taste of the GNOME developers => we
should accept that.

Regards
Johannes
 


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:40:18PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a
> terrible idea?

You expect me to reply to this??!?


-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Philip Van Hoof]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:01 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:

> > To be honest,
> > I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a
> > good switch.
> 
>   How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to
> help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3
> hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be
> able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even
> using our spare time.

This would be a good idea in my opinion. For example an expert in the
target DVCS writes up a list of tasks. In such a way that people can
execute them one by one.

We've done this several times with migrating away from old APIs. I
remember for example the GOptionContext and GVFS migrations. 

Our community-members are smart people: they 'are' qualified to perform
such tasks.

I think that it wouldn't be bad for our community if multiple people
would get involved here. Didn't we need more people in the sysadmin
team? And wouldn't this be an opportunity for newcomers to join the
team?

>   In any case, after looking at the results of the survey we should
> only look at hybrid/dual proposal like John's when we don't find any
> way of moving to git in a reasonable amount of time (< 6 months).

The First-Picks-Permutations graphs illustrate that people who know both
git and bzr pick git two to one. Also the ranking results show this.

We must draw conclusions from that. Even if it's not about winning or
losing: it's still about making the right choice. 

I'm not against the hybrid solution. But it's my opinion that the
solution must make sure that the full git experience is guaranteed.

ps. I don't think a lot of developers care about the actual format on
GNOME servers. If it doesn't interfere with any of git's use-cases.


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Ali Sabil]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
> > the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
> > crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
> > *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.
>
> That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
> Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.
>
>
Sorry for not being clear in my explanations. Basically, as Olav pointed
out, it is about having Bazaar on the server, with a git-serve plugin
allowing it to fulfill the git client requests as well as the bzr client
requests.

The following scenarios will be possible:
(bzr repo) <-> (git serve plugin) <- network ---> (git client)
(bzr repo) <-> (bzr serve) <- network ---> (bzr client)

both bzr and git will operate fully, nothing will be partially supported,
since the bazaar repository format is a superset of the git repo format (ie.
it stores more metadata).

I talked about hg, just to highlight that the solution is quite future
proof, because you can certainly apply the same solution to allow hg clients
to access the repository.

cheers,

--
Ali
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:37:05PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> >> Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
> >> the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
> >> crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
> >> *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.
> > That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
> > Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.
> 
> The potential problem I see is all of the remote branches will use
> different DVCS that do not support git + hg + bzr. So eventually all

Again: No Hg.

> of us will be forced to use all three tools in order to merge changes
> from remote branches (unless we expect *all* people to provide *all*
> changes as patches in which case I don't see the real gain of
> switching to a distributed tool).

Interesting point. I actually saw it as a benefit (store locally using
whatever you like). On GNOME server (personal stuff), doesn't matter.
Anyway, if you're going against the maintainer who wants to merge, too
bad for you IMO.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[David Zeuthen]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:33 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
> > the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
> > crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
> > *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.
> 
> That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
> Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.

Then what happens when a new version of git with a new feature,
incompatible with the git-serve kludge, is released? Then we're screwed,
right? And who gets to pay? We do. We're stuck with an old version of
git. Us. The very same people who very clearly said "git", not "bzr".

Is it *really* so hard to understand that this whole git-serve is a
terrible idea?

 David


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:29:02PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
> the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
> crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
> *from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.

That isn't true. It is Bzr on server, with Git support. Nothing about
Hg, nothing about doing partly Git, partly Bzr.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[David Zeuthen]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:20 +0100, Ali Sabil wrote:
> First, it only makes it much harder for users to grasp; we're
> going to
> end up with some projects have l.g.o pages / README files /
> mailing list
> messages saying "use bzr to check out this branch" and others
> saying the
> same for git. That's *not* desirable; it makes it so much
> harder for new
> contributors.
> 
> That's not what John's proposal is about ! John wants to use the bzr
> format as a repository format, and add a git-serve plugin to bzr to be
> able to "talk" to the git clients. In other words, you will be able to
> access the same data using either bzr, git or hg.

Uh, but that's exactly how I understood the proposal and I believe that
the points I made (that you didn't respond to) still stands: That it's
crazy to officially want to support git, bzr and hg *at* the same time
*from* the same repo. It's just asking for trouble.

> Finally: We're talking about people's data here. The first
> rule of
> holding peoples data is that you don't screw around with it
> "just
> because". Data integrity matters. Keeping things simple and
> staying with
> a *single* kind of hammer (instead of a weird homegrown mutant
> hammer)
> helps here. Otherwise we end up with data loss. Frankly, I'm
> concerned
> that some people are even considering using such homegrown
> kludges for
> holding our GNOME source code.
> 
> 
> Comparing the size of the Bazaar unit tests with those of Git, I would
> certainly choose Bazaar for storing my data.

I wasn't commenting on bzr vs git storage format; I'm sure either is
fine. I was commenting on the fact that someone proposes to inject
something like git-serve in the middle; that's what I think is a kludge.

 David



___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Ali Sabil]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Robin Sonefors  wrote:

> On sön, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Luca Ferretti 
> wrote:
> > > Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
> > >
> > >> It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> > >> not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> > >> gnome.
> > >
> > > BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order
> > > to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from
> > > git needs ~740MB :-/
> >
> >   How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? I heard (don't know
> > if it's true or not) git repo usually takes less diskspace then svn
> > checkout. This page seems to support this claim:
>
> A complete git repo is usually smaller than a complete SVN one
> (according to "common knowlege" - as in, I didn't run any benchmarks),
> but one commonly only checks out the /trunk subdirectory in subversion,
> while git usually checks out the whole project history, including all
> branches - it could be a substantial amount of data you don't check out
> with SVN.
>
>
Well,

Actually the quotes from the GitSvnComparsion page are very misleading, it
is true that a git working directory needs less space than an svn working
directory, it is also true that a git repository is smaller than an svn
repository. The main difference is that with git, you *clone* a repository,
and then create a working directory out of it, so you need sizeof(repo) +
sizeof(git-working-directory) on your hard disk, while with svn, all what
you need is sizeof(svn-working-directory).
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Ali Sabil]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM, David Zeuthen  wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:47 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> > Probably just like bzr already went through several repository formats
> > and allowed easy upgrades (just like Subversion repository format
> > changed and it didn't cause any problem for users).  I don't think
> > there is a problem here.
>
> I don't find this answer compelling. At all. It also doesn't answer the
> question. It's not unlikely that a future git repo format is
> fundamentally incompatible with current or future bzr repo formats.
>
>

> > And also, data would be available in native git format on lots of
> > computers, and could always be pushed to a vanilla git server.
>
> Someone really got to explain exactly why support for multiple
> repository formats is desirable.
>

To put it straight: the git repository format is not as awesome as people
want to believe.


> First, it only makes it much harder for users to grasp; we're going to
> end up with some projects have l.g.o pages / README files / mailing list
> messages saying "use bzr to check out this branch" and others saying the
> same for git. That's *not* desirable; it makes it so much harder for new
> contributors.
>

That's not what John's proposal is about ! John wants to use the bzr format
as a repository format, and add a git-serve plugin to bzr to be able to
"talk" to the git clients. In other words, you will be able to access the
same data using either bzr, git or hg.


>
> Second, it also makes it harder to set up things like jhbuild; either
> you end up pulling from both git and bzr (from the same underlying repo)
> or you end up mentally having to translate branch names etc. from one
> system to another. This is error prone.
>
> Third, I could go on with examples, just consider the set of webtools
> (cgit, annotation, source code searching etc.) we end up with on
> dvcs.gnome.org; some would be built against bzr, others against git. You
> get inconsistent branch names, you end up overloading contributors with
> different concepts and so forth.
>
> Finally: We're talking about people's data here. The first rule of
> holding peoples data is that you don't screw around with it "just
> because". Data integrity matters. Keeping things simple and staying with
> a *single* kind of hammer (instead of a weird homegrown mutant hammer)
> helps here. Otherwise we end up with data loss. Frankly, I'm concerned
> that some people are even considering using such homegrown kludges for
> holding our GNOME source code.
>
>
Comparing the size of the Bazaar unit tests with those of Git, I would
certainly choose Bazaar for storing my data.

Cheers,

--
Ali
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Sebastian Pölsterl]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Matthias Clasen schrieb:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM, David Zeuthen  wrote:
>> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:48 +, John Carr wrote:
>>> As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation
>>> will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any
>>> talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move
>>> forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my
>>> idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to
>>> undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and
>>> doable.
>> Can you explain what would happen in the event that a future version of
>> git switches to an repository format that isn't compatible with how you
>> want to store data?
> 
> It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
> not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
> gnome.

I totally agree. Sooner or later it will become a nightmare to maintain.

- --
Greetings,
Sebastian Pölsterl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklhNewACgkQ1ygZeJ3lLIeGIACglzAktDqy1eQ6VBsOsak41zSk
d6cAnAh9IK1acbtnyufeezRL+TQ9Dgvp
=N+VG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[David Zeuthen]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:47 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Probably just like bzr already went through several repository formats
> and allowed easy upgrades (just like Subversion repository format
> changed and it didn't cause any problem for users).  I don't think
> there is a problem here.

I don't find this answer compelling. At all. It also doesn't answer the
question. It's not unlikely that a future git repo format is
fundamentally incompatible with current or future bzr repo formats.

> And also, data would be available in native git format on lots of
> computers, and could always be pushed to a vanilla git server.

Someone really got to explain exactly why support for multiple
repository formats is desirable.

First, it only makes it much harder for users to grasp; we're going to
end up with some projects have l.g.o pages / README files / mailing list
messages saying "use bzr to check out this branch" and others saying the
same for git. That's *not* desirable; it makes it so much harder for new
contributors.

Second, it also makes it harder to set up things like jhbuild; either
you end up pulling from both git and bzr (from the same underlying repo)
or you end up mentally having to translate branch names etc. from one
system to another. This is error prone.

Third, I could go on with examples, just consider the set of webtools
(cgit, annotation, source code searching etc.) we end up with on
dvcs.gnome.org; some would be built against bzr, others against git. You
get inconsistent branch names, you end up overloading contributors with
different concepts and so forth.

Finally: We're talking about people's data here. The first rule of
holding peoples data is that you don't screw around with it "just
because". Data integrity matters. Keeping things simple and staying with
a *single* kind of hammer (instead of a weird homegrown mutant hammer)
helps here. Otherwise we end up with data loss. Frankly, I'm concerned
that some people are even considering using such homegrown kludges for
holding our GNOME source code.

 David


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Luca Ferretti  wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto:
>
>> It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
>> not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
>> gnome.
>
> BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order
> to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from
> git needs ~740MB :-/

  How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? I heard (don't know
if it's true or not) git repo usually takes less diskspace then svn
checkout. This page seems to support this claim:

http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion

"An SVN working directory always contains two copies of each file: one
for the user to actually work with and another hidden in .svn/ to aid
operations such as status, diff and commit. In contrast a Git working
directory requires only one small index file that stores about 100
bytes of data per tracked file. On projects with a large number of
files this can be a substantial difference in the disk space required
per working copy."

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Jason D. Clinton]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Luca Ferretti  wrote:
> bzr allows lightweight checkouts [1]. What about git?

Yes, it does. This is not an issue.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Frederic Peters]

David Zeuthen wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:48 +, John Carr wrote:
> > As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation
> > will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any
> > talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move
> > forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my
> > idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to
> > undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and
> > doable.
> 
> Can you explain what would happen in the event that a future version of
> git switches to an repository format that isn't compatible with how you
> want to store data?

Probably just like bzr already went through several repository formats
and allowed easy upgrades (just like Subversion repository format
changed and it didn't cause any problem for users).  I don't think
there is a problem here.

And also, data would be available in native git format on lots of
computers, and could always be pushed to a vanilla git server.


Frederic

[Disclaimer: this is just my understanding of the proposal, I may be
 wrong and corrected by anybody.]
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[David Zeuthen]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:01 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>   How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to
> help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3
> hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be
> able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even
> using our spare time.

Would it be worth investigating whether it's worth having the Foundation
pay someone to help with this migration (planning, executing, maybe even
hosting etc.)? I mean, the eco-system around git is huge (github and
others comes to mind) and growing... I'm pretty sure there's plenty git
experts around.

 David


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Matthias Clasen]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM, David Zeuthen  wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:48 +, John Carr wrote:
>> As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation
>> will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any
>> talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move
>> forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my
>> idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to
>> undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and
>> doable.
>
> Can you explain what would happen in the event that a future version of
> git switches to an repository format that isn't compatible with how you
> want to store data?

It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is
not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of
gnome.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Jason D. Clinton]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)  wrote:
>  How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to
> help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3
> hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be
> able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even
> using our spare time.

I can commit that much time as long as there's clear delegation of
work by--preferably--the sysadmin team. I don't want to sit on a
committee that does a lot of deciding and no actual doing.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

Hi!

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:40:33AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
>> Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be,
>> in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful.
>
> His way is a solution I expect to be implemented in 2009.

  No matter how good that sounds, it's still not a "solution", it's a
workaround to the problem that we don't have (human) resources to do a
move to git.

> To be honest,
> I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a
> good switch.

  How about we set-up a task-force of volunteers who would want to
help in the move, each volunteer promising at least 3 hours a week? 3
hours is a very small amount of time but I am hoping that we'll be
able to gather at least 10 volunteers and together we can do it, even
using our spare time.

  In any case, after looking at the results of the survey we should
only look at hybrid/dual proposal like John's when we don't find any
way of moving to git in a reasonable amount of time (< 6 months).

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[David Zeuthen]

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 17:48 +, John Carr wrote:
> As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation
> will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any
> talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move
> forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my
> idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to
> undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and
> doable.

Can you explain what would happen in the event that a future version of
git switches to an repository format that isn't compatible with how you
want to store data?

 David


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Wouter Bolsterlee]

2009-01-04 klockan 15:10 skrev Jason D. Clinton:
> I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and
> bzr--git still won.

Two remarks.

First remark: In the survey I answered that I do not really know much about
git, and that I do not use it often. This has a reason, which I haven't seen
anyone take into account: the few times I *did* try to use git it was an
utterly frustrating experience, and I gave up pretty much immediately.
(In contrast, the bzr experience has been a lot better: many good tutorials,
better error messages and help from the command line tool, a friendly and
active community, developers who actually *do* care about their users, and a
clean, extensible design with great plugins floating around.)

Second remark: a survey is never about ‘winning’ or ‘losing’.

— Wouter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[John Carr]

>> Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a
>> proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
>> suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they
>> want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be
>> chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
>> ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).
>
> John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As
> stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded,
> bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format:
>
> http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172
>
> Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves
> aren't supported?

A git move operation is simply git rm && git add. By that reckoning
i'd either not be able to represent any deletes or any adds because of
that god damn impaired Bzr file format! Wow, i'd be so eager to share
that idea with the community ;)

The big deal here is that git uses a heuristic to say Foo is now
called Bar (selectively; its not done for speed in some cases). This
is not stored anywhere in the file format, git redetermines it (if it
wouldnt be too slow to do so). In Bazaar, its stored in the file
format. This means merge doesnt have to consider ancestry to know if 2
files are related, it just knows they are. Solution? We simply have to
run that heuristic ourselves so that Bazaar knows 2 files are related
at import time.

Git support is not degraded here, and Bazaar is no worse off than if
you had imported a Git project into Bazaar for the first time
(basically merge will work, but won't work *as* well in the rename
case).

I'm not a complete idiot - if it was going to be a "degraded,
bastardized form" of Git I wouldn't waste my time on it. I suppose I
might be an evil genius stalling for "Bazaar DS9" to be written (sorry
for the very bad joke that probably only i get...).

> It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr,
> Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I
> mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've
> wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that
> came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why
> are we letting them derail this process?

This is not my 1st reply. The first one was fully of angry cow >:().
Please dont single people out. I'm happy to have a hand wavy
discussion with you 1st person, IRL especially so. Also, KL and RT are
innocent.

As bkor has stated, there are lots of Git users so any implementation
will support you, and support you well. That is a requirement. So any
talk of my idea is not Git vs Bazaar, its talk of one way we can move
forward. So i dont consider it to be derailing. When mentioning my
idea, lets stick to technical problems with it rather than trying to
undermine anyone who has looked at it and thinks it is sound and
doable.

John
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Robert Carr]

Not to be hostile, but please don't accuse me of "holding" anything up  
or being a vocal minority. I have never spoken out, posted, or blogged  
about any of the DVCS decisions.


I think I said in the survey I would prefer bzr, however I didn't  
really care at the time (and much less since
Discovering git-rebase--interactive) and if I indicated otherwise,  
that was not intentional.


On Jan 4, 2009, at 10:40, "Jason D. Clinton"   
wrote:


On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters   
wrote:

That isn't a contest. It is a survey.


Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need
to get defensive.


  
It

seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general


I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is
somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin
time is not so important.


Thank you for voicing your opinion.



just all move on?


Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is  
about

people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are
incomplete.


I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the
subset of  4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr.


Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked  
1st

50% of the time, etc). But if you say "move on", how do you think a
switch is made? Magic?


Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot.


Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to  
make a

proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal  
they
want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one  
can be

chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).


John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As
stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded,
bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format:

http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172

Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves
aren't supported?

It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr,
Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I
mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've
wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that
came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why
are we letting them derail this process?

Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be,
in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-l...@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Karl Lattimer]

> Elijah Newren did an initial analysis of the data.  His analysis also includes
> the survey questions and answers.  Find it at:
> 
>   http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2009/01/03/gnome-dvcs-survey-results/
> 

This is pretty decent analysis going on here :) 

I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone 
mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with git 
protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for having a 
GNOME DVCS.

Happy new year everyone :)

BR,
 K

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Jason D. Clinton]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, John Carr  wrote:
> I'm not a complete idiot - if it was going to be a "degraded,
> bastardized form" of Git I wouldn't waste my time on it. I suppose I
> might be an evil genius stalling for "Bazaar DS9" to be written (sorry
> for the very bad joke that probably only i get...).

I don't think you're an idiot. I think you're quite smart.

Can you please tell us exactly what your words, "This is a price that
a maintainer pays for using Git and one reason why eventually they
might decide to (and have the option to) switch to using Bazaar," mean
and to which git features you are planning on this statement applying
to encourage people to use bzr?

Or do you mean that you taking that sentence back?

Also, can you tell us if Canonical is directing you to work on this?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 09:40:33AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> > That isn't a contest. It is a survey.
> 
> Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need
> to get defensive.

It is not defensive. I don't like changing a survey into 'winning' /
contest.

> >>  It
> >> seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general
> >
> > I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is
> > somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin
> > time is not so important.
> 
> Thank you for voicing your opinion.
> 
> 
> >> just all move on?
> >
> > Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about
> > people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are
> > incomplete.
> 
> I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the
> subset of  4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr.

Yes, but then said 6. That is incomplete.

> > Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st
> > 50% of the time, etc). But if you say "move on", how do you think a
> > switch is made? Magic?
> 
> Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot.

You talk about moving on. I don't see anyone who'd do something like
that. My reply is that nothing will happen unless someone does
something real (not just another thread).

> > Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a
> > proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
> > suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they
> > want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be
> > chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
> > ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).
> 
> John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As
> stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded,
> bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format:

I read his comment not in the same way. Bzr supports more, Git less.
However, I will less John answer... as that will be more concrete.

> http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172
> 
> Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves
> aren't supported?

Git doesn't do renames; instead applies heuristics. So this is applied.

> It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr,
> Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I
> mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've
> wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that
> came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why
> are we letting them derail this process?

Again, you're limiting it to 6 people. It is not about the six. This is
why I responded before. Instead, you use that number again. Even adding
people's names, I don't find this useful.

I am not going to talk about 'derailing'.. too emotional word.

> Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be,
> in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful.

His way is a solution I expect to be implemented in 2009. To be honest,
I really wonder if something else would happen that I'd qualify as a
good switch.

Yes, might be more difficult to implement. This is what can be
discussed. (Along with other migration proposals.)

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Jason D. Clinton]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Olav Vitters  wrote:
> That isn't a contest. It is a survey.

Please don't read more in to my email than I intended. There's no need
to get defensive.


>>  It
>> seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general
>
> I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is
> somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin
> time is not so important.

Thank you for voicing your opinion.


>> just all move on?
>
> Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about
> people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are
> incomplete.

I highlighted this statistical analysis because those 6 contain the
subset of  4 vocal users demanding that we /also/ support bzr.


> Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st
> 50% of the time, etc). But if you say "move on", how do you think a
> switch is made? Magic?

Please don't be patronizing. I'm not an idiot.


> Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a
> proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
> suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they
> want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be
> chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
> ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).

John's idea is a good one but it patently loses on technical merit. As
stated by John here, git will only be support in a degraded,
bastardized form because he chose bzr as the repository format:

http://blogs.gnome.org/johncarr/2008/12/11/dvcs-for-gnome/#comment-172

Are we really going to go back to the days of CVS where file moves
aren't supported?

It strikes me that this very vocal minority--John and Robert Carr,
Karl Lattimer and Rob Taylor (whom are four of the six people I
mentioned above)--are potentially delaying even longer what we've
wanted for more than two years, now. It is from these same people that
came the suggestion that git users were a rapid, vocal minority. Why
are we letting them derail this process?

Moving will not be easy, obviously. But doing it John's way will be,
in my technical analysis, an order of magnitude more painful.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Olav Vitters]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:10:21AM -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> > This is pretty decent analysis going on here :)
> >
> > I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone 
> > mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with 
> > git protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for 
> > having a GNOME DVCS.
> >
> 
> I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and
> bzr--git still won.

That isn't a contest. It is a survey.

>  It
> seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general

I am a sysadmin and disagree with your notion that sysadmin time is
somehow saved. I'd rather asses such things myself. Further, sysadmin
time is not so important.

> proliferation of Things To Learn for New People(tm) can be saved if
> the six people (1.04% of respondents) who ranked bzr above git in that
> graph can just bite the bullet and admit that git won. Can we please

It is a survey. It is NOT about 'winning'.

> just all move on?

Further, your explanation is incomplete. As you said, the graph is about
people knowing two DVCS systems. I wouldn't say I knew 2. Those 6 are
incomplete.

Now before you reply: we have a clear need for git to work (ranked 1st
50% of the time, etc). But if you say "move on", how do you think a
switch is made? Magic?

Anyway, I'd rather add John Carr to the sysadmin team. I plan to make a
proposal to switch GNOME to a DVCS where Git works using Johns
suggestion. Then other sysadmins[1] can suggest whatever proposal they
want. These proposals can be investigated on merit and then a one can be
chosen (chosen as in: "go ahead and try if this would work", not "go
ahead blindly"; everything must be tested before a cutover).

[1] or whomever. Although I don't see how that would work.

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

Hi!
   First of all, thanks a millions to Behdad and Elijah for taking up
this task and congrats for managing to accomplish it so effectively.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Jason D. Clinton  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Karl Lattimer  wrote:
>> I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone 
>> mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with 
>> git protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for having 
>> a GNOME DVCS.
>>
>
> I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and
> bzr--git still won.
>  It
> seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general
> proliferation of Things To Learn for New People(tm) can be saved if
> the six people (1.04% of respondents) who ranked bzr above git in that
> graph can just bite the bullet and admit that git won. Can we please
> just all move on?
>
> My fear is that this effort to keep bzr on life support will cause bzr
> to show up as a requirement in distcheck for modules maintained by
> people who are still holding out.

  So say we all (?) but now is the problem of who will do the move to
git? Last I checked, nobody except for Federico volunteered for that
and IIRC he is going to do this using his "spare time" which we all
know might not be enough for such a big task. I hope I am wrong about
this and we do have enough resources to do the move but in case I am
right, I think we should seriously consider John's idea.

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Jason D. Clinton]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Karl Lattimer  wrote:
>> Elijah Newren did an initial analysis of the data.  His analysis also 
>> includes
>> the survey questions and answers.  Find it at:
>>
>>   http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2009/01/03/gnome-dvcs-survey-results/
>>
>
> This is pretty decent analysis going on here :)
>
> I'd like to remind people of John Carr's recent blog post too, someone 
> mentioned in the survey results actually. JC has been working on bzr with git 
> protocol support, which would fulfil many of the requirements for having a 
> GNOME DVCS.
>

I'd like to point out that--of the 15 people who regularly use git and
bzr--git still won.
<http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/survey/first-picks-permutations.png> It
seems to me that a lot of brain power, sysadmin time, and general
proliferation of Things To Learn for New People(tm) can be saved if
the six people (1.04% of respondents) who ranked bzr above git in that
graph can just bite the bullet and admit that git won. Can we please
just all move on?

My fear is that this effort to keep bzr on life support will cause bzr
to show up as a requirement in distcheck for modules maintained by
people who are still holding out.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

GNOME DVCS Survey Results

[Behdad Esfahbod]

In December I ran a distributed version control system survey for GNOME.
>From the survey opening page:

  Thank you for taking the GNOME DVCS Survey.  This survey is run on behalf
  of the GNOME Foundation board of directors, release team, and sysadmin team.
  The GNOME project is planning a possible move from SVN to a distributed
  version control system in 2009.  The contenders for the system to use are
  bzr, git, and hg.  The aim of the survey is to help us better understand
  familiarity and preferences of our active contributor base regarding the
  future version control system for GNOME.  The survey results will be
  informational and will be sent to foundation-list and desktop-devel-list
  upon completion.

GNOME contributors with an SVN account who had an SSH key installed on their
account were invited to fill in the survey.  A total of 1083 account holders
were invited, and 579 filled in the survey.  The survey results are now
available to the public:

  http://www.gnome.org/~behdad/dvcs-survey/

Elijah Newren did an initial analysis of the data.  His analysis also includes
the survey questions and answers.  Find it at:

  http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2009/01/03/gnome-dvcs-survey-results/

If you analyze the results, please reply to this thread and also leave a
comment on my blog post linking to your analysis:

  http://mces.blogspot.com/2009/01/gnome-dvcs-survey.html

Cheers,

behdad
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list