meeting 2007-09-05 9:30 US-EAST

meeting 2007-09-05 9:30 US-EAST

[Andrew Cagney]

Topic is mercurial vs git vs cvs.

Re: meeting 2007-09-05 9:30 US-EAST

[Andrew Cagney]

Some status:

Type, value, variable, ... fixes and improvements; this is to stop frysk 
reporting <unknown type>, for instance:
scox: adding frysk.debuginfo.TypeEntry and TestTypeEntry which parse 
recursive types in DIE information
sami: finished support for inline scopes; addressing performance 
problems; working to simplify the DebugInfoEvaluator so it uses that 
(and does proper scope lookups).
teresa: location expressions; in particular support for DW_OP_piece
cagney: overhauled type system in frysk.value; supports the DWARF types 
that C/C++ can define

--

rick&phil: Work a frysk.value.dead.Exe{Host,Task,Proc}; this is part of 
getting:
(fhpd) load executable
(fhpd) print i
work.

tim: making the stepping-engine and hpd synchronized so that races such 
as typing:
(hpd) run
(hpd) break main
too fast wouldn't work.

mark: importing libunwind, bringing in the ppc stuff and other fixes; 
ready for working on .debug_frame.  This is so that back-traces are far 
more robust.

Re: meeting 2007-09-05 9:30 US-EAST

[Tim Moore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Topic is mercurial vs git vs cvs.
> 
http://lwn.net/Articles/246381/ is interesting on the subject of git repository
styles, distributed vs centralized, etc.

Tim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG3oHKeDhWHdXrDRURAgNSAKDdIL7L5iwaqkFaKZdNlHDoL5ekLgCdEg8X
jOmaFFsye3EBAYSvhYWyDkM=
=M7/6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

cvs, hg, git, etc. Re: meeting 2007-09-05 9:30 US-EAST

[Mark Wielaard]

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 12:15 +0200, Tim Moore wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Topic is mercurial vs git vs cvs.
> > 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/246381/ is interesting on the subject of git repository
> styles, distributed vs centralized, etc.

Here is a super short summary of git vs hg:
http://blog.experimentalworks.net/archives/38-Git-vs.-Mercurial.html
it has one big flaw in that it missed named branches in hg:
http://hgbook.red-bean.com/hgbookch8.html
(The Mercurial book is pretty good btw, go read it cover to cover!)

Personally I am actually fine with staying with cvs. I like to tinker
with different cms like setting up the hg and trac clones. I try to use
them locally, but I cannot say I am expert enough to recommend one.

The real issues to discuss imho are:
- Does anybody have a good workflow in mind if we switch to any dcms?
  Although I can use it for simple stuff myself I don't really know how
  any of the more advantaged usages (vendor branch tracking for example)
  really work out.
- Is having the whole group learn a complete new set of tools and
  concepts really that beneficial over just staying with cvs?
- What does sourceware actually support?
- Who wants to maintain the system/set it up/keep track of issues/etc.
  Although it isn't that hard, I could setup the hg and trac mirror
  over the weekend, it is real work and needs someone to babysit it
  the first few weeks to help everybody get up to speed and make sure
  it doesn't fall over in production use.

Cheers,

Mark