CVS is down -> Switching to SVN?

[ktreichel]

Hi all,

as you have noticed the cvs service on savannah is down.
I'm thinking about taking this as an opportunity for switching to svn.

Any objections?

Cheers,

Klaus


_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

Hello Klaus,

Am Dienstag 02 Juni 2009 17:39:56 schrieb Klaus Treichel:
> as you have noticed the cvs service on savannah is down.
> I'm thinking about taking this as an opportunity for switching to svn.
>
> Any objections?

I know, I'm not an active developer, but I think switching to svn wouldn't
change anything in such situations, because you also need a central server. To
avoid such problems where the central server isn't reachable you better use a
decentralized version control system like git.

Just my 2 cents
Regards
Alexander


_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Radek Polak]

Alexander Stein wrote:

> I know, I'm not an active developer, but I think switching to svn wouldn't
> change anything in such situations, because you also need a central server. To
> avoid such problems where the central server isn't reachable you better use a
> decentralized version control system like git.

Hi,
i aggree. As bazaar and git user i have to say that i am really happy
with them and SVN seems to me step back. But if it will be SVN in the
end it will still be much better then CVS :)

Radek



_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[ktreichel]

Am Dienstag, den 02.06.2009, 20:03 +0200 schrieb Radek Polak:

> Alexander Stein wrote:
>
> > I know, I'm not an active developer, but I think switching to svn wouldn't
> > change anything in such situations, because you also need a central server. To
> > avoid such problems where the central server isn't reachable you better use a
> > decentralized version control system like git.
>
> Hi,
> i aggree. As bazaar and git user i have to say that i am really happy
> with them and SVN seems to me step back. But if it will be SVN in the
> end it will still be much better then CVS :)
>
> Radek

Ok, i'm trying to convert the cvs repository to git right now.
The last complete backup is from 2009-04-29 so everything committed
after that day has to be applied again.

Klaus

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
> Dotgnu-pnet@...
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet


_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[MikyT]

2009/6/2 Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...>:
> To
> avoid such problems where the central server isn't reachable you better use a
> decentralized version control system like git.

I completely agree with Alexander. A decentralized VCS is a much more
flexible tool, so in case of a switch I think one of them would be a
better option with respect to SVN.
I personally like Bazaar-VCS, because of its simplicity, power and
portability, but I've never tried git so I cannot say anything about
it in particular. Anyway, they share the same basic idea of
distributed VCS, so it should be more or less the same.

Regards,

MikyT


_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Deryk Robosson-2]

On Jun 3, 2009 2:36am, Klaus Treichel <ktreichel@...> wrote:

> Am Dienstag, den 02.06.2009, 20:03 +0200 schrieb Radek Polak:
>
> > Alexander Stein wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I know, I'm not an active developer, but I think switching to svn wouldn't
>
> > > change anything in such situations, because you also need a central server. To
>
> > > avoid such problems where the central server isn't reachable you better use a
>
> > > decentralized version control system like git.
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> > i aggree. As bazaar and git user i have to say that i am really happy
>
> > with them and SVN seems to me step back. But if it will be SVN in the
>
> > end it will still be much better then CVS :)
>
> >
>
> > Radek
>
>
>
> Ok, i'm trying to convert the cvs repository to git right now.
>
> The last complete backup is from 2009-04-29 so everything committed
>
> after that day has to be applied again.

I'd prefer SVN over CVS. I've been spoiled by the likes of Tortoise(SVN|CVS) over the years. To be honest and fair though, I know nothing of git so I would not be able to make a properly informed decision at this point in time, :)

Deryk
_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Rhys Weatherley-2]

Ok, i'm trying to convert the cvs repository to git right now.
The last complete backup is from 2009-04-29 so everything committed
after that day has to be applied again.

+1 for git from me.

Cheers,

Rhys.

_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Kirill Kononenko]

Hi all


My vote is for anything that is not cvs. I have been using svn for
quiet long and I cannot complain about svn. Anything even more
sophisticated like git is better even.


Thanks,
Kirill

2009/6/3  <drobosson@...>:

> On Jun 3, 2009 2:36am, Klaus Treichel <ktreichel@...> wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, den 02.06.2009, 20:03 +0200 schrieb Radek Polak:
>>
>> > Alexander Stein wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > I know, I'm not an active developer, but I think switching to svn
>> > > wouldn't
>>
>> > > change anything in such situations, because you also need a central
>> > > server. To
>>
>> > > avoid such problems where the central server isn't reachable you
>> > > better use a
>>
>> > > decentralized version control system like git.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > i aggree. As bazaar and git user i have to say that i am really happy
>>
>> > with them and SVN seems to me step back. But if it will be SVN in the
>>
>> > end it will still be much better then CVS :)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Radek
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, i'm trying to convert the cvs repository to git right now.
>>
>> The last complete backup is from 2009-04-29 so everything committed
>>
>> after that day has to be applied again.
>
> I'd prefer SVN over CVS. I've been spoiled by the likes of Tortoise(SVN|CVS)
> over the years. To be honest and fair though, I know nothing of git so I
> would not be able to make a properly informed decision at this point in
> time, :)
>
> Deryk
> _______________________________________________
> Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
> Dotgnu-pnet@...
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet
>
>

_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[James Hess]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Stein
<alexander.stein@...> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 02 Juni 2009 17:39:56 schrieb Klaus Treichel:
>> as you have noticed the cvs service on savannah is down.
>> I'm thinking about taking this as an opportunity for switching to svn.
>> Any objections?
> I know, I'm not an active developer, but I think switching to svn wouldn't
> change anything in such situations, because you also need a central server. To
...

However, the outage of CVS is an opportune time to switch to anything
else,  anything that's better than CVS...

GIT has its advantages,  though I must admit i'm partial to Mercurial...
Distributed VCS like Git and friends have a disadvantage that they are
relatively complex, much more complex to manage than VCS
like SVN,   and not that advantageous  unless you have a
large number of developers.

Particularly a lot of developers who wouldn't have commit access,
working on various projects that don't overlap


The question would be... are  GITs  strengths  useful to the project?
Maybe, maybe not...

I would say that SVN is probably an easier conversion to make
immediately that CVS users should be easily able to adapt to  (because
Subversion has many  close similarities to CVS).   GIT has a hefty
learning curve.

--
-J


_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[ktreichel]

Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 18:26 +1000 schrieb Rhys Weatherley:

>
> +1 for git from me.
>

A backup from 20090527 was found later and was restored. So cvs is
available again.

The conversion from cvs to git is not that straightforward.

The features we'll need are:

1. It should be simple to get a complete local copy of the whole
dotgnu-pnet repository.

2. One should be able to create a branch on a subproject like pnet,
libjit, ...

3. And a limitation we have right now is that there is only one git
repository link available on savannah.


From what i got reading git documentation branches can be done only on a
whole repository (module). So we'd need to convert the cvs repository to
git submodules which require separate git repositories (but i might have
missed something) and bundle them in a master repository.
This would allow 2. and the conversion would be quite easy.
But 1. and 3. are not satisfied.

With converting libjit, pnet, ... to subtrees it seems that we can't
convert the branches and tags on the subprojects so a lot of history
information would get lost.

Any hints are welcome.

Cheers,

Klaus



_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Radek Polak]

Klaus Treichel wrote:

> 2. One should be able to create a branch on a subproject like pnet,
> libjit, ...

Hi Klaus,
why is this needed?

I dont think that splitting modules into repositories is good idea.
Pnet is dependent on pnetlib and libjit - with separate repositories
you can end up easily with different version of e.g. pnet and pnetlib
that do not work together - because of internal calls and other stuff.

One repository would have advantage of common changelog.

Btw i have bazaar mirrors on launchpad [1] but it is unusable for me
just because there are separate repositories for pnet and pnetlib.

Radek

[1] https://code.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/dotgnu-pnet/


_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[ktreichel]

Hi,

I just discovered that it is possible to have more than one git
repository on savannah. So the conversion should be easy.

The layout would be:

/src/git/dotgnu-pnet.git   -- This is the master repository for the
submodules
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/cscctest.git
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/libCrayons.git
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/libjit.git
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/ml-pnet.git
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/pnet.git
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/pnetC.git
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/pnetlib.git
/src/git/dotgnu-pnet/treecc.git

Any suggestions?

Cheers,

Klaus



_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Rhys Weatherley-2]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Klaus Treichel <ktreichel@...> wrote:

Am Mittwoch, den 03.06.2009, 18:26 +1000 schrieb Rhys Weatherley:

>
> +1 for git from me.
>

A backup from 20090527 was found later and was restored. So cvs is
available again.

Cool - that makes the git thing less urgent.  However, once you go git, you won't want to go back to CVS. :-)
 

The conversion from cvs to git is not that straightforward.

The features we'll need are:

1. It should be simple to get a complete local copy of the whole
dotgnu-pnet repository.

2. One should be able to create a branch on a subproject like pnet,
libjit, ...

3. And a limitation we have right now is that there is only one git
repository link available on savannah.

There are a number of projects with several repositories, including the Hurd:

    http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/

So it doesn't appear to be unusual.  And it wouldn't be much different to now,
where a separate "co module" is needed for pnet, pnetlib, libjit, etc.

Cheers,

Rhys.

_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 09:39 +0200, Radek Polak wrote:
> Klaus Treichel wrote:
>
> > 2. One should be able to create a branch on a subproject like pnet,
> > libjit, ...
>
> Hi Klaus,
> why is this needed?

Because that's how Git tends to work best. Rather than having 4
projects in one repo, it's best practice to have those split up. This
is pretty much because when you check out a project you get the whole
history and it's not per file like CVS. So bundling projects together
makes the history get rather large, and the initial clones rather large.

> I dont think that splitting modules into repositories is good idea.
> Pnet is dependent on pnetlib and libjit - with separate repositories
> you can end up easily with different version of e.g. pnet and pnetlib
> that do not work together - because of internal calls and other stuff.

IMO that's irrelevant. That's like saying because GTK is dependent on  
GLib, they should be bundled together in one repo. It doesn't make
sense to do that since they're two projects (or two seperate parts of
the same project. However you want to say it, it's very similar to
what's happening here.)

> One repository would have advantage of common changelog.

Reading through per repo changelogs, IMO, is quicker to find the
relevant information that you want.



_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Robbert Haarman-5]

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:32:40AM -0500, Harley Laue wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 09:39 +0200, Radek Polak wrote:
> > Klaus Treichel wrote:
> >
> > > 2. One should be able to create a branch on a subproject like pnet,
> > > libjit, ...
> >
> > Hi Klaus,
> > why is this needed?
>
> Because that's how Git tends to work best. Rather than having 4
> projects in one repo, it's best practice to have those split up. This
> is pretty much because when you check out a project you get the whole
> history and it's not per file like CVS. So bundling projects together
> makes the history get rather large, and the initial clones rather large.

I don't think you really need to worry about history getting too large.
In my experience, Git is very efficient, both in terms of speed and in
terms of storage use. http://git-scm.org/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion seems
to agree:

   For example the Mozilla repository is reported to be almost 12 GiB
   when stored in SVN using the fsfs backend. Previously, the fsfs backend
   also required over 240,000 files in one directory to record all 240,000
   commits made over the 10 year project history. This was fixed in SVN
   1.5, where every 1000 revisions are placed in a separate directory.
   The exact same history is stored in Git by only two files totaling just
   over 420 MiB.

> > I dont think that splitting modules into repositories is good idea.
> > Pnet is dependent on pnetlib and libjit - with separate repositories
> > you can end up easily with different version of e.g. pnet and pnetlib
> > that do not work together - because of internal calls and other stuff.

This is something that I would be much more concerned about than about
the size of the history. If the projects are interdependent to the point
that they evolve together and basically cannot be used separately, I
think having them in separate branches would lead to usability issues
far worse than having a larger history. In fact, in that case, you
wouldn't probably have a larger history if you merged them all in a
singe branch, because you would always have to use all the separate
branches together anyway.

> IMO that's irrelevant. That's like saying because GTK is dependent on  
> GLib, they should be bundled together in one repo. It doesn't make
> sense to do that since they're two projects

Indeed, if you can use the parts separately, there is sense in putting
them in separate branches.

So, in the end, I think the choice boils down to how tightly coupled the
projects are.

Regards,

Bob

--
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?"



_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Aleksey Demakov]

Hi,

Has anybody looked at hg (mercurial) ? I see more and more people using it.

http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/

Regards,
Aleksey


_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet

[Rhys Weatherley-2]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM, James Hess <mysidia@...> wrote:

However, the outage of CVS is an opportune time to switch to anything
else,  anything that's better than CVS...

Yes ...

 

GIT has its advantages,  though I must admit i'm partial to Mercurial...
Distributed VCS like Git and friends have a disadvantage that they are
relatively complex, much more complex to manage than VCS
like SVN,   and not that advantageous  unless you have a
large number of developers.

Particularly a lot of developers who wouldn't have commit access,
working on various projects that don't overlap

Even with smaller projects, I find it easier to work with git repositories than with CVS if I need to customize the project for my own use.  I can keep track of the changes in a local history rather than make separate patch files.  And once the customizations are done, I have the history all ready to push should I get commit rights sometime in the future.  (In fact, I already have treecc in a git repo I made from CVS the other day - I'm just waiting for Klaus to set up the offical repo so I can push my fixes up :-) ).

The question would be... are  GITs  strengths  useful to the project?
Maybe, maybe not...

I have some ideas on improving treecc - but don't want to break the common version until I have something stable to replace it.  So git is definitely useful to me: I can work on it in a separate repo locally without losing the change history in some mega-patch later.
 

I would say that SVN is probably an easier conversion to make
immediately that CVS users should be easily able to adapt to  (because
Subversion has many  close similarities to CVS).   GIT has a hefty
learning curve.

At the company where I work we recently moved to git from perforce (commercial VCS with a central repository structure).  You can use it like a centralized VCS if you want to, and only move on to branches and peer-to-peer pulls later.  Or never move on.  I can help coach people during the dotgnu-pnet transition if you'd like - it took a few weeks at my company and then we wondered why we'd ever used perforce.

I suggest that we keep the CVS version of dotgnu-pnet for a couple of months during the transition (clearly labelled as read-only).  Then if git turns into a nightmare, we can extract the patches and re-apply them to CVS (or SVN).

Cheers,

Rhys.

_______________________________________________
Dotgnu-pnet mailing list
Dotgnu-pnet@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dotgnu-pnet