From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25192 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2009 22:12:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 25182 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2009 22:12:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:12:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9112F78008; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:12:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VkVCmqaUKBuy; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:12:08 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4AD3A9B9.1070409@ecoscentric.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:12:00 -0000 From: Alex Schuilenburg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?w5h5dmluZCBIYXJib2U=?= CC: eCos Disuss References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: DVCS choice X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 Øyvind Harboe wrote: > Perhaps a choice between git & hg is unecessary? > > There are conversion tools between git/hg so the question > what to present to end users and what maintainers > use can be two different version control systems. There > could even be official git & hg mirrors regardless of > "official" choice. > You still need to publish some way for users to be able to contribute easily, and having multiple options is just going to confuse the average Joe. Besides, you still need somewhere for contributions to be collated and that has to be based on something. Anyway, I don't see a need to present multiple DRCS repositories. You can push/pull hg into git (http://hg-git.github.com/) and I expect vice-versa, so there is little point of mirrors in different formats IMHO. You even say so below ;-) > You can even push/pull to/from git/hg with any combination > of client & server. Spooky! Bet there are some hitches > when you actually try that at home! > None that I have come across, but then I have only been playing with the basic operations like push, pull, commit, revert, rollback, tag, branch, merge. I expect an octopus merge between different DRSC systems will be quite interesting ;-) > Certainly if someone has a strict policy of not using X > on the client, then there is nothing that stops them from > converting to their preferred DVCS client. > > I just converted from mercurial to git on my laptop and > it took ~10-20 minutes. Used hg-fast-export. > Around 7 minutes on our main server, and then just for the hell of it, I converted the git repo back to hg to see if it came back the same. diff -r -q -x .hg ... said it did :-) > I couldn't find any branches in the git repository, but I > suppose that there weren't any in the mercurial repository > either. > Correct, there were none. The three CVS branches were just cloned. I could have made the 2.0 and 3..0 releases into branches and just cloned the flash_v2 branch, but then the conversion would have been a little bit more painful since most of the release changes were just duplicated into the trunk rather than actually being merged after the release. If there was a clear merge point in the CVS repo, I would have done it - there looked like a couple which I tried, but there were just too many conflicts resulting from the duplicate checkins. My guess is the maintainers were being paranoid about forgetting to pull in release changes into the trunk so they made duplicate checkins as they went. Also little point in spending any effort "fixing" the repo to reflect what might have happened if a DRCS was used - we need something moving forward that preserves the history, which we now have. > git checkout afterwards took 10 seconds or so. DVCS > is insanely much faster than CVS for those operations... > > Indeed. Here are some real hg times from our main server. bash% time hg clone ecos ecos-test-with-update updating working directory 8085 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved real 0m8.655s user 0m5.672s sys 0m2.293s bash% time hg clone -U ecos ecos-test-without-update real 0m1.777s user 0m0.651s sys 0m1.103s bash% time hg -R ecos-test-without-update update 8085 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved real 0m7.010s user 0m5.579s sys 0m1.402s bash% -- Alex Schuilenburg Managing Director/CEO eCosCentric Limited www.ecoscentric.com -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss