From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31068 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2009 14:34:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 31057 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2009 14:34:49 -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; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:34:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B1F2F78007; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:34:42 +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 Cn1lcj7a1UEW; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:34:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Bart Veer To: Oyvind_Harboe CC: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=98yvind_Harboe?= on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:50:57 +0200) References: 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] What's the process on switching version control system for eCos? X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00197.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Oyvind" == =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=98yvind Harboe?= writes: Oyvind> eCos is run in an open manner. Oyvind> Is there someone who's in charge of the process of Oyvind> switching to a new distributed version control system? Not at this time. Oyvind> Are we just throwing stuff around currently? Yes. Oyvind> I'd like to see a renewed patch process in place as part Oyvind> of the new version control system switch. Oyvind> I guess the maintainers will have to make a choice on Oyvind> behalf of the community, so there won't actually be a vote Oyvind> as such. Since eCos is run in an open manner, this major Oyvind> change should take the community's input and not be Oyvind> presented as a fait accomplis though. The final decision will be made by the maintainers, although there will have to be some consultation with the sourceware.org to make sure that they are happy with the choice. Constructive input from the community will be welcomed at the appropriate time. However, at this time there is no formal proposal before the maintainers, and so far none of the maintainers have volunteered to work on a switch over. It seems likely that there will be at least one, possibly more, proposals in the coming weeks or months. I would expect any such proposal to address at least the following issues: 1) cvs is known to be broken in various ways, and sourceware.org has run with various revisions of cvs with different bugs over the years. Hence a full import of the current cvs repository into the proposed system is likely to be problematical. More precisely, it probably won't be too hard to get to a state where it is possible to check out something equivalent to the current cvs trunk; however, replicating the full history of the repository on all branches will be much more difficult. So: a) how much effort will be contributed to minimize the loss of history? b) how much history can we expect to lose, irrespective of the amount of effort put in? 2) sorting out the repository itself is only part of the problem. The web pages will need updating. There will almost certainly be teething problems early on, e.g. the system may fail to work for some people because of firewall issues. Can we expect any assistance with issues like those? So, a suggestion that e.g. eCos should switch over to git because it is already in use on other projects is unlikely to get much attention from the maintainers. A serious offer to do the hard work will get much more attention, especially if it is backed up with experimental data and explanations of why some of the problems with cvs are just too hard to work around. To a large extent, in this case the actual choice of which system to switch to is less important than who will end up doing the work. The three main distributed version control systems (mercurial, git, and bazaar) all seem to offer much the same functionality, and all of them are far superior to cvs. If pressed I would have to admit to a slight preference for mercurial, partly because it has a reputation for being easier to use than the others (especially in the context of Windows users), and partly because it has rather good documentation in the form of the O'Reilly book "Mercurial: the Definitive Guide". Bart -- Bart Veer eCos Configuration Architect eCosCentric Limited The eCos experts http://www.ecoscentric.com/ Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071. >>>> Visit us at ESC-Boston http://www.embedded.com/esc/boston <<<< >>>> Sep 22-23 on Stand 226 at Hynes Convention Center, Boston <<<< -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss