Quantcast

Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Carnë Draug
Hi

I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

marco atzeri-2
Il 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Carnë Draug ha scritto:
> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
>
> Carnë
>

in general, I do not like ~90 individual repositories;
overall maintance for common modifications will be a pain

Marco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Lukas Reichlin-4
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
On 13.06.2013, at 18:30, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
>
> Carnë

Go ahead!

Lukas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
In reply to this post by marco atzeri-2
On 13 June 2013 12:44, marco atzeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Il 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Carnė Draug ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
>> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
>> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?

> in general, I do not like ~90 individual repositories;
> overall maintance for common modifications will be a pain

What are those common modifications?

- Jordi G. H.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Mike Miller
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 17:30:55 +0100, Carnë Draug wrote:
> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?

I am in favor of moving from svn to mercurial. That said, I have
noticed some packages have dependencies outside of their directory
structure (e.g. main/comm/doc/Makefile) that might introduce some
small breakage here and there when they are made into individual
projects. Certainly fixable, just something to watch out for.

--
mike
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by marco atzeri-2
On 13 June 2013 17:44, marco atzeri <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Il 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Carnė Draug ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
>> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
>> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
>>
>> Carnė
>>
>
> in general, I do not like ~90 individual repositories;
> overall maintance for common modifications will be a pain
>
> Marco

I would agree with that. But the idea is that most developers would
only have a handful of repos on their system, not all 90. Plus, this
would make it easier to later move some out of Octave Forge into
Agora, and move Octave Forge somewhere else. It's not what's will
happen now. I used to think this things should be done with a single
big large move. I am no longer of that opinion.

It would also make it easier for me and reduce the number of people
with commit access. People could just ask for pull requests, or submit
changesets to package maintainers. And I grep the whole history of the
repo way too often, looking for the history of stuff. Mercurial is
much much faster for that.

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

PhilipNienhuis
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
Carnë Draug-4 wrote
Hi

I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
I'm not a fan of mercurial. For a big multi-developer project like Octave it is obviously imperative.
However, for a simple package like io with just one maintainer, svn works wonderfully simple and reliably. For such cases mercurial just looks overkill to me.

So, no enthusiasm here.

Philip
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

marco atzeri-2
In reply to this post by Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
Il 6/13/2013 6:49 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso ha scritto:

> On 13 June 2013 12:44, marco atzeri  wrote:
>> Il 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Carnė Draug ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
>>> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
>>> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
>
>> in general, I do not like ~90 individual repositories;
>> overall maintance for common modifications will be a pain
>
> What are those common modifications?
>
> - Jordi G. H.
>

last time was adjusting the lib dependency (like -llapack)
across several packages.

Also moving files between similar packages will be
more complicated

Marco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

marco atzeri-2
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
Il 6/13/2013 6:53 PM, Carnë Draug ha scritto:

> On 13 June 2013 17:44, marco atzeri <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Il 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Carnė Draug ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
>>> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
>>> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
>>>
>>> Carnė
>>>
>>
>> in general, I do not like ~90 individual repositories;
>> overall maintance for common modifications will be a pain
>>
>> Marco
>
> I would agree with that. But the idea is that most developers would
> only have a handful of repos on their system, not all 90. Plus, this
> would make it easier to later move some out of Octave Forge into
> Agora, and move Octave Forge somewhere else. It's not what's will
> happen now. I used to think this things should be done with a single
> big large move. I am no longer of that opinion.
>
> It would also make it easier for me and reduce the number of people
> with commit access. People could just ask for pull requests, or submit
> changesets to package maintainers. And I grep the whole history of the
> repo way too often, looking for the history of stuff. Mercurial is
> much much faster for that.
>
> Carnë
>

no objection at all to switch to  mercurial.

If you want to split in ~90 individual repositories
will be nice to a have them as subrep of a common forge one.

~170 M as repository size is similar to other
packages that I am working on.

Regards
Marco




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
In reply to this post by PhilipNienhuis
On 13 June 2013 12:53, PhilipNienhuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> However, for a simple package like io with just one maintainer, svn works
> wonderfully simple and reliably. For such cases mercurial just looks
> overkill to me.

The problems I've worked with you in the past with hg were precisely
about how to collaborate with others. If you only work with yourself,
hg should be as simple as svn.

- Jordi G. H.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
In reply to this post by marco atzeri-2
On 13 June 2013 12:54, marco atzeri <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Il 6/13/2013 6:49 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso ha scritto:
>>
>> On 13 June 2013 12:44, marco atzeri  wrote:
>>
>>> Il 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Carnė Draug ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
>>>> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
>>>> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
>>
>>
>>> in general, I do not like ~90 individual repositories;
>>> overall maintance for common modifications will be a pain
>>
>>
>> What are those common modifications?
>>
>
> last time was adjusting the lib dependency (like -llapack)
> across several packages.

I see. Is this a frequent problem we should prepare for? Can we,
should we move common code to a single location so it only has to be
changed once? Note that I don't think this hypothetical central
location should require subrepos, because...

> If you want to split in ~90 individual repositories
> will be nice to a have them as subrep of a common forge one.

subrepos are a Feature of Last Resort

    http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/FeaturesOfLastResort#But_I_need_to_have_managed_subprojects.21

If the superrepo containing all subrepos is going to be the canonical
go-to place, then it wouldn't be much better than the giant OF hg
mirror that we already have:

    http://hg.octave.org/forge

> Also moving files between similar packages will be
> more complicated

Yes, this would require two commits, one in each package. Is this a big problem?

- Jordi G. H.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

PhilipNienhuis
In reply to this post by Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 13 June 2013 12:53, PhilipNienhuis<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> However, for a simple package like io with just one maintainer, svn works
>> wonderfully simple and reliably. For such cases mercurial just looks
>> overkill to me.
>
> The problems I've worked with you in the past with hg were precisely
> about how to collaborate with others. If you only work with yourself,
> hg should be as simple as svn.

Sure, I remember those conversations and I appreciate your guiding hand,
thanks again. Yet substituting three hg commands for just one svn
command isn't what I would call "as simple" [1]

[1] svn:  "ci"
mercurial: "hg pull -u && hg ci && hg push" (from your email of May 28,
2012)

You suggested to try TortoiseHG; I had tried that already earlier on and
I found it installed another one of those malware-prone Windows services
("daemons"), with the sole purpose of being able to show the proper icon
before the file name in Windows Explorer. That did it for me ("it"
meaning: inviting to dump such crap-/bloatware)
Sad as TortoiseSVN works very well and needs no daemons.

Philip
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
On 13 June 2013 13:43, Philip Nienhuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sure, I remember those conversations and I appreciate your guiding hand,
> thanks again.

I know you said you didn't have time for it in the past, but this is a
very good read, and not just for you, but for anyone else who wants to
be convinced that dumping svn for hg is a good idea:

    http://hginit.com/00.html

- Jordi G. H.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by PhilipNienhuis
On 13 June 2013 18:43, Philip Nienhuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yet substituting three hg commands for just one svn command
> isn't what I would call "as simple" [1]
>
> [1] svn:  "ci"
> mercurial: "hg pull -u && hg ci && hg push" (from your email of May 28,
> 2012)

I don't think this is a correct comparison. The equivalent to that in
svn would be 2 commands

svn update # the hg pull -u equivalent
svn ci # the hg commit and push

The whole point of separating the last in 2 commands is one of the
reasons why I'm suggesting the move, so it's not something bad. It's a
key concept of distributed revision control system.

Carnë
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

c.-2
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug

On 13 Jun 2013, at 18:30, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of moving the multiple packages we currently have in
> Octave Forge to individual mercurial repositories. Does anyone have
> any opinion on the subject or would oppose to it?
>
> Carnë

Yes, please do not move the following packages:

bim, ocs, secs*d, nurbs, fpl

In maintaing those packages I am using help from others that
took a long time to learn subversion I am not ready to start
over with mercurial just yet.

c.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

PhilipNienhuis
In reply to this post by Carnë Draug
Carnë Draug wrote:
> .... distributed revision control system.

What use is that for a one-maintainer package?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Nir Krakauer-2
It seems like the burden of access control would be much greater if
each package was in its own repository, especially for the packages
that don't have active maintainers who can manage the access control.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
In reply to this post by PhilipNienhuis
On 13 June 2013 14:37, Philip Nienhuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Carnė Draug wrote:
>>
>> .... distributed revision control system.
>
>
> What use is that for a one-maintainer package?

There are reasons for it here:

    http://hginit.com/00.html

The point of a DVCS isn't just to collaborate with others. I create
lots of personal hg repos all the time even though I never work on
them with anyone but myself.

- Jordi G. H.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
In reply to this post by Nir Krakauer-2
On 13 June 2013 14:47, Nir Krakauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It seems like the burden of access control would be much greater if
> each package was in its own repository, especially for the packages
> that don't have active maintainers who can manage the access control.

The access control problem is or should be orthogonal the number of
repos that we have. What sort of interface does SF have for this?

- Jordi G. H.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Moving to Octave Forge to mercurial

Carnë Draug
In reply to this post by PhilipNienhuis
On 13 June 2013 19:37, Philip Nienhuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Carnė Draug wrote:
>>
>> .... distributed revision control system.
>
> What use is that for a one-maintainer package?

These are only the first that came to my mind:

1) even such package will receive patches from others. This allows to
use changesets or push requests, signing commits etc.
2) no internet required to make commits. I do a lot of stuff while traveling.
3) much much faster when looking through the history.
4) makes it easier to make moves in the future. This is suggested
every once in a while but it's always a lot of work. So we would solve
one thing at a time.

Carnë
12
Loading...