You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> on 2011/06/14 16:38:40 UTC
Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
One factor we need to consider is making it easy to collaborate with
peer/downstream projects, per the podling proposal. LibreOffice has imported
all the code into Git, and I'd assume that downstream projects like
RedOffice are using either Mercurial or Git as well. While SVN is obviously
the Apache standard, it would probably be better to use Git for this project
given both its size and the choices made elsewhere in the OOo community.
S.
----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
Date: 13 June 2011 21:05:52 GMT+01:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
1) volunteers are working on git hosting, but it's taking longer than
we expected. Additional volunteers are welcome- start by subscribiing
to infrastructure-dev@apache.org (a public list).
2) svn has improved its merging capabilities since you last ran ooo on it.
3) as I mentioned our svn infrastructure performs well. we even have a
transparent
mirror in europe to cut down on cross-atlantic latency.
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 4:00:25 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
What are the reasons? Is it "just" that there is no appropriate
infrastructure in place, or is there some general rule that Apache projects
must run on svn instead of something else?
I'm asking because currently OOo runs on hg, and the short time we did run
on svn (after cvs, before hg), things were not working really ideally for
us.
-Stephan
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com
>wrote:
Not at this time, no. FWIW our Subversion server is very responsive,
even for largish codebases (yay SSDs).
----- Original Message ----
From: Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 3:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
OO.o is a very large project, it might be overkill for Subversion. Is
Git an option?
Damjan
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:28, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > - start with a git repo from the beginning
>
> As stated elsewhere, this is not available right now. There are the
> technical issues, and I know that many people also have concerns with
> potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
> time. Not here and now.
Just to have it mentioned somewhere: At least legend has it that the
existing OOo repo is too fat to handle as a single git repo, and allegedly
that is one reason LO split this into multiple (which I consider very
unfortunate, given that the code base is rather monolithic).
(Apart from that, I can only second Mathias' statement that you do not
really want to go back from distributed to centralized. But I guess we can
certainly also live with svn. --- We even managed to make do with cvs and
even less friendly stuff in the past...)
-Stephan
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
On 14/06/2011 17:05, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
See my reply to Gregs mail in this thread a moment ago. I think Sam is
saying the same thing.
Ross
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know that many people also have concerns with
> >> potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
> >> time. Not here and now.
> >
> > With respect, that was the same phrase used to defer discussion during
> the
> > proposal process. Leaving community concerns until all the decisions are
> > made and the only remedy is "those other folk will just have to do like
> we
> > do" doesn't seem wise.
>
> Simon, in a prior email, you referred to a "negotiation". Forgive me,
> but that indicates a fundamental problem with a frame of reference.
>
> There exists people here who will volunteer to set up a subversion
> repository. There exists people here who will commit to maintaining
> such on ASF infrastructure.
>
> Simon, you've indicated that there are people who might be willing to
> host git repositories on other infrastructure. Of course, they are
> welcome to do so.
>
> If there are people who are willing to work with the ASF
> infrastructure team directly, they will be provided with the
> opportunity to do so. Just be aware that others have tried in the
> past and to date the results can most charitably be described as
> "inconclusive" at this time. That doesn't mean that others aren't
> welcome to try. If that is what is desired, the first step is to join
> infrastructure-dev@apache.org.
>
> Meanwhile, those that are willing to set up a subversion repository
> are welcome to do so. And those that are willing to begin importing
> code into that repository can begin once that is done.
>
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know that many people also have concerns with
>> potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
>> time. Not here and now.
>
> With respect, that was the same phrase used to defer discussion during the
> proposal process. Leaving community concerns until all the decisions are
> made and the only remedy is "those other folk will just have to do like we
> do" doesn't seem wise.
Simon, in a prior email, you referred to a "negotiation". Forgive me,
but that indicates a fundamental problem with a frame of reference.
There exists people here who will volunteer to set up a subversion
repository. There exists people here who will commit to maintaining
such on ASF infrastructure.
Simon, you've indicated that there are people who might be willing to
host git repositories on other infrastructure. Of course, they are
welcome to do so.
If there are people who are willing to work with the ASF
infrastructure team directly, they will be provided with the
opportunity to do so. Just be aware that others have tried in the
past and to date the results can most charitably be described as
"inconclusive" at this time. That doesn't mean that others aren't
welcome to try. If that is what is desired, the first step is to join
infrastructure-dev@apache.org.
Meanwhile, those that are willing to set up a subversion repository
are welcome to do so. And those that are willing to begin importing
code into that repository can begin once that is done.
> S.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
On 14/06/2011 16:53, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:47, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stein<gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I know that many people also have concerns with
>>> potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
>>> time. Not here and now.
>>>
>>
>> With respect, that was the same phrase used to defer discussion during the
>> proposal process. Leaving community concerns until all the decisions are
>> made and the only remedy is "those other folk will just have to do like we
>> do" doesn't seem wise.
>
> Subversion is a given.
>
> If you want to talk about Git at Apache, then follow Joe's advice and
> move that discussion over to infrastructure-dev@apache.org. There is
> zero sense in repeating the discussion here. I'm not trying to shut
> down the overall discussion, just to avoid it being *here* (ooo-dev).
To be clear. Greg is *not* saying OOo can never have Git. Greg is saying
that at the time of writing Git is not an option as on the
general@incubator list during proposal phase.
There are many community, legal, resource and technical issues to be
resolved before the ASF can provide Git. Infra have indicated that they
will provide Git if and when the issues can be satisfactorily addressed.
I believe Gregs point is that if OOo community members wish to make Git
available sooner rather than later then the only option available is to
join infrastructure-dev@apache.org. Then spend some time finding out
what the current status is, understand the problems that remain unsolved
and help solve them. Spending time arguing about it here will detract
from making progress on OO.o and not contribute to making Git a reality
at the ASF.
Folk around here will soon get used to Greg. It's worth watching him. He
represents the most common approach to development and discussion here
at the ASF. I'm sure he won't mind me using him as a case study...
Sometimes he can be a little blunt which comes across as "shut up, it
isn't happening 'cos I say so". What he really means (usually) is "this
is the wrong forum to make it happen, keeping the discussion here is a
distraction for me and the rest of the community" (or something like
that, clearly I don't want to put words in Greg's mouth, Whiskey usually
gets a better reaction).
Ross
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:47, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know that many people also have concerns with
>> potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
>> time. Not here and now.
>>
>
> With respect, that was the same phrase used to defer discussion during the
> proposal process. Leaving community concerns until all the decisions are
> made and the only remedy is "those other folk will just have to do like we
> do" doesn't seem wise.
Subversion is a given.
If you want to talk about Git at Apache, then follow Joe's advice and
move that discussion over to infrastructure-dev@apache.org. There is
zero sense in repeating the discussion here. I'm not trying to shut
down the overall discussion, just to avoid it being *here* (ooo-dev).
Cheers,
-g
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
On 14/06/2011 17:33, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Starting with svn won't set anything in stone. Perhaps we should think
> about our usage of svn now so that at least a later conversion to git
> will be easy and without losses. We should be able to do that.
This attitude fits very well to the ASF way of doing things. Progress on
a less than perfect solution today is nearly always better than no
progress towards a "perceived as perfect" solution tomorrow (especially
for dev work).
Ross
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 18:51, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>...
>> It is not a question of benefit of the doubt. Anybody who wants to
>> make a difference is welcome to participate. The operative word,
>> however, is "participate".
>
> Help me understand here, Sam. Are you asserting that you do not consider the
> contributions I have made so far in the Incubator to be "participation"?
To take a guess, I believe Sam is saying "if you'd like to sign onto
infrastructure-dev and help to make it happen, then great." In other
words, don't just make a proposal, but roll up your sleeves to make it
work.
Now... it sounds like you *did* roll up your sleeves and talked to TDF
folks about infrastructure capability over there, but (unfortunately)
that plan isn't workable. As the "suggested plan" discussion morphed
towards "Git at ASF", it didn't seem you were moving towards solving
(say) LDAP and Git integration :-P ... thus we end up with you and Sam
talking past each other.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Sam, help me learn the system here.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> Whether I said it poorly or not, any statement along the lines of
> "some group needs this" without providing the resources to make it
> happen is not going to make it happen.
Greg has made clear that the proposal is not interesting, so I've not
pursued it further. But, independently of that fact, did I phrase my
proposal incorrectly? I had checked directly with some of the LO developers
that the resources would be made available and they were willing to help if
the proposal was interesting, so it was not idle comment.
It is not a question of benefit of the doubt. Anybody who wants to
> make a difference is welcome to participate. The operative word,
> however, is "participate".
>
Help me understand here, Sam. Are you asserting that you do not consider the
contributions I have made so far in the Incubator to be "participation"?
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 14.06.2011 22:45, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Whether I said it poorly or not, any statement along the lines of
> "some group needs this" without providing the resources to make it
> happen is not going to make it happen. That statement is true no
> matter what the group is, including groups that are *within* the ASF.
>
>> Lets give Simon the benefit of the doubt for now, lets assume Simon will
>> back down on suggestions that don't fit well for good reasons (like this one
>> I'm afraid Simon). We shouldn't attack him whenever he tries to be
>> constructive.
>
> It is not a question of benefit of the doubt. Anybody who wants to
> make a difference is welcome to participate. The operative word,
> however, is "participate".
I take that as the infrastructure "version" of the oh so familiar "send
patches" slogan that developers use if users ask for a particular feature.
Sounds good to me. :-)
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 14/06/2011 18:18, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>>> My main reason for being here is to have "a foot in both camps" and make
>>>> sure that there's someone to bring in TDF people whenever there's scope
>>> to
>>>> collaborate and draw the overall OOo community together.
>>>
>>> I'll simply note that those people with a "foot" here are those that
>>> are actually doing the work.
>>
>> Respectfully, that's an unhelpful statement.
>
> I agree.
>
> Simon is trying to help us build bridges to the TDF. Inevitably this is
> going to be clumsy to start with and it will often seem that we, the ASF are
> being asked to compromise in ways we find impossible or unacceptable.
> However, we should recognise that part of "doing the work" at this stage is
> trying to build those bridges.
Whether I said it poorly or not, any statement along the lines of
"some group needs this" without providing the resources to make it
happen is not going to make it happen. That statement is true no
matter what the group is, including groups that are *within* the ASF.
> Lets give Simon the benefit of the doubt for now, lets assume Simon will
> back down on suggestions that don't fit well for good reasons (like this one
> I'm afraid Simon). We shouldn't attack him whenever he tries to be
> constructive.
It is not a question of benefit of the doubt. Anybody who wants to
make a difference is welcome to participate. The operative word,
however, is "participate".
> Ross
- Sam Ruby
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
On 14/06/2011 18:18, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>> My main reason for being here is to have "a foot in both camps" and make
>>> sure that there's someone to bring in TDF people whenever there's scope
>> to
>>> collaborate and draw the overall OOo community together.
>>
>> I'll simply note that those people with a "foot" here are those that
>> are actually doing the work.
>>
>
> Respectfully, that's an unhelpful statement.
I agree.
Simon is trying to help us build bridges to the TDF. Inevitably this is
going to be clumsy to start with and it will often seem that we, the ASF
are being asked to compromise in ways we find impossible or
unacceptable. However, we should recognise that part of "doing the work"
at this stage is trying to build those bridges.
Lets give Simon the benefit of the doubt for now, lets assume Simon will
back down on suggestions that don't fit well for good reasons (like this
one I'm afraid Simon). We shouldn't attack him whenever he tries to be
constructive.
Ross
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> > No URL, sorry, I still haven't found the archives.
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/
>
> (syncing happens on an hourly basis).
>
Great, thanks! (I'd been checking that URL regularly waiting for them to
appear!)
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, June 14, 2011 1:18:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> if you talk about "community concerns", you should be more specific
> > about
> > >> which parts of the community are involved here.
> > >
> > > Actually that was Sam's phrase, better ask him :-)
> >
> > Doesn't ring a bell. Got a URL?
> >
>
> Actually it was Greg, sorry :-) He said "community issues" and I rephrased
> him. No URL, sorry, I still haven't found the archives.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/
(syncing happens on an hourly basis).
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net
> >wrote:
> >
> >> if you talk about "community concerns", you should be more specific
> about
> >> which parts of the community are involved here.
> >
> > Actually that was Sam's phrase, better ask him :-)
>
> Doesn't ring a bell. Got a URL?
>
Actually it was Greg, sorry :-) He said "community issues" and I rephrased
him. No URL, sorry, I still haven't found the archives.
>
> > My main reason for being here is to have "a foot in both camps" and make
> > sure that there's someone to bring in TDF people whenever there's scope
> to
> > collaborate and draw the overall OOo community together.
>
> I'll simply note that those people with a "foot" here are those that
> are actually doing the work.
>
Respectfully, that's an unhelpful statement.
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
>
>> if you talk about "community concerns", you should be more specific about
>> which parts of the community are involved here.
>
> Actually that was Sam's phrase, better ask him :-)
Doesn't ring a bell. Got a URL?
> My main reason for being here is to have "a foot in both camps" and make
> sure that there's someone to bring in TDF people whenever there's scope to
> collaborate and draw the overall OOo community together.
I'll simply note that those people with a "foot" here are those that
are actually doing the work.
> S.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 14.06.2011 18:48, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
>
>> if you talk about "community concerns", you should be more specific about
>> which parts of the community are involved here.
>>
>
> Actually that was Sam's phrase, better ask him :-)
Sure, but it was you who wanted them to get addressed now. But anyway, I
didn't use that to pull your leg, I really wanted to get the discussion
to the point.
>
> My main reason for being here is to have "a foot in both camps" and make
> sure that there's someone to bring in TDF people whenever there's scope to
> collaborate and draw the overall OOo community together.
>
> S.
>
Rest assured that any cooperation with any interested contributor will
be very welcome.
From my understanding we don't have a "camp" here. If others want to
make our place a camp, we might fail to prevent that. But OTOH so far I
still think that we have a good chance to avoid it.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
> if you talk about "community concerns", you should be more specific about
> which parts of the community are involved here.
>
Actually that was Sam's phrase, better ask him :-)
My main reason for being here is to have "a foot in both camps" and make
sure that there's someone to bring in TDF people whenever there's scope to
collaborate and draw the overall OOo community together.
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
Simon,
On 14.06.2011 17:47, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stein<gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know that many people also have concerns with
>> potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
>> time. Not here and now.
>>
>
> With respect, that was the same phrase used to defer discussion during the
> proposal process. Leaving community concerns until all the decisions are
> made and the only remedy is "those other folk will just have to do like we
> do" doesn't seem wise.
if you talk about "community concerns", you should be more specific
about which parts of the community are involved here. As we are talking
about a code repository, we should let the developers have their say
about it, as they are the ones that have to work with the tool. As I'm
one of them, let me start.
With Sam's explanations and promises ;-) I'm fine with giving the
current svn a chance. As I wrote, in the beginning we won't be hurt by
merging a lot as most probably we will have to work on "head" a lot
until we get a first build running.
If there was a chance to move to git in the future, we can do that
without losing anything. If there wonn't, why waste words about it now?
Even if we stayed with svn for a longer time, there wasn't a problem for
the LO devs, as interfaces or bridges between svn and git exist and are
known to work. AFAIK go-oo.org has practiced that already in the past,
even in times where OOo development produced much more code than it will
do in the forseeable future. If consuming OOo@Apache by Libre Office did
not work in the future, I'm pretty sure that the SCM would not be the
reason for that.
Nevertheless, if the LO devs will need help to make that bridging as
smooth and painless as possible, I will help where I can.
Starting with svn won't set anything in stone. Perhaps we should think
about our usage of svn now so that at least a later conversion to git
will be easy and without losses. We should be able to do that.
Besides that I would welcome to see git at Apache moving forward.
Perhaps I can ask our colleague Jens-Heiner Rechtien if he wanted to
help a bit with that, if that was possible.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that many people also have concerns with
> potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
> time. Not here and now.
>
With respect, that was the same phrase used to defer discussion during the
proposal process. Leaving community concerns until all the decisions are
made and the only remedy is "those other folk will just have to do like we
do" doesn't seem wise.
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Below, I will refer to the information from:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/SCM_Migration#Evaluating_the_SCM_candidates.2C_Metrics
(thanks to Meeks for pointing me there)
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:28, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> From our own experience the biggest problem with svn was merging of
> branches.
The above page was written using Subversion 1.4. That was before we
had merge tracking features, and before a number of merge-related
optimizations.
We're now on the cusp of releasing Subversion 1.7. Infrastructure has
been discussing whether to install a build on the server. It
definitely has some faster merging, and much better features.
> We often had features that took several months of development time. We
> didn't want to commit incomplete or buggy code to our master, so we created
> feature branches for them and called them "child workspaces" (cws). When a
> cws was finished, it had to be synchronized with the current master before
> it could be integrated. Developers also might want to merge in changes from
> master into their branch in between so that code change conflicts can be be
> reduced or solved early.
Right. We use the same in the development of Apache Subversion itself.
"svn merge" is used to keep the branch up to date. "svn merge
--reintegrate" to bring it back onto trunk. Merge tracking makes this
much, much easier than when you had to do it (no anchor tag, for
example).
I know that Subversion is slower in some ways from Mercurial or Git, I
believe that the CWS process amplified that problem.
> This merging of branches took hours with svn and was a PITA. With Mercurial
> it usually took only a few minutes and it was done completely on a local
> computer. No problems with slow or interrupted internet connections.
We do the merges on a local computer, too. It is impossible to merge
only on the server (it cannot resolve conflicts).
> Beside that, if you ever worked with a DSCM, you never want to go back to a
> centralized SCM. It's as easy as that. The OOo repo is huge, but with
> Mercurial it took only a few seconds or minutes to create a clone or 10
> minutes to get the source from it. Checking out from svn over http took
> hours. But I'm sure the pros and cons of DSCM are known.
The page from above did not show "hours" for non-Windows developers.
Since that old 1.4 release, we have fixed Windows checkouts. Their
performance is comparable to the Unix-ish platforms.
To be specific, it says a Unix checkout to local disk is a mere 5
minutes. That sounds faster than Mercurial.
[and I'll note that it says a Windows git checkout did NOT even complete]
>
> *If* we had some options, I would like to think about the following ones:
>
> - start with svn and decide later (at least in the next few months we won't
> need feature branches a lot)
This is the only choice available to us at this time.
>
> - have svn for the master and do all work on a git repo elsewhere that at
> times is pushed to the svn master
People use git-svn to do some work, but I seem to recall hearing that
it does not manage the merge-tracking information properly. And that
it may not deal with properties either. I think we would want some
git-svn people to detail any pitfalls if that tool is recommended at
all.
>
> - start with a git repo from the beginning
As stated elsewhere, this is not available right now. There are the
technical issues, and I know that many people also have concerns with
potential community issues. But that is all a discussion for a later
time. Not here and now.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
From our own experience the biggest problem with svn was merging of
branches.
We often had features that took several months of development time. We
didn't want to commit incomplete or buggy code to our master, so we
created feature branches for them and called them "child workspaces"
(cws). When a cws was finished, it had to be synchronized with the
current master before it could be integrated. Developers also might want
to merge in changes from master into their branch in between so that
code change conflicts can be be reduced or solved early.
This merging of branches took hours with svn and was a PITA. With
Mercurial it usually took only a few minutes and it was done completely
on a local computer. No problems with slow or interrupted internet
connections.
Beside that, if you ever worked with a DSCM, you never want to go back
to a centralized SCM. It's as easy as that. The OOo repo is huge, but
with Mercurial it took only a few seconds or minutes to create a clone
or 10 minutes to get the source from it. Checking out from svn over http
took hours. But I'm sure the pros and cons of DSCM are known.
*If* we had some options, I would like to think about the following ones:
- start with svn and decide later (at least in the next few months we
won't need feature branches a lot)
- have svn for the master and do all work on a git repo elsewhere that
at times is pushed to the svn master
- start with a git repo from the beginning
Regards,
Mathias
On 14.06.2011 16:48, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> ASF Infra provides GIT for readonly: http://git.apache.org/
> This might already help for some people.
>
> As far as I know the GIT writing is in the makings but finished. I
> heard it will take another good while to become truth.
>
> I don't want to start a flame war - but it has been said ASF SVN can
> handle the volume of the code. And Git reading is available.
>
> Do you see any serious problems if the code will go into svn in the
> first step (which will last for a while)?
>
> Otherwise I am afraid there are no options - of course maybe Joe or
> somebody else from infra can comment this too.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> One factor we need to consider is making it easy to collaborate with
>> peer/downstream projects, per the podling proposal. LibreOffice has imported
>> all the code into Git, and I'd assume that downstream projects like
>> RedOffice are using either Mercurial or Git as well. While SVN is obviously
>> the Apache standard, it would probably be better to use Git for this project
>> given both its size and the choices made elsewhere in the OOo community.
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Joe Schaefer<jo...@yahoo.com>
>> Date: 13 June 2011 21:05:52 GMT+01:00
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
>>
>>
>> 1) volunteers are working on git hosting, but it's taking longer than
>> we expected. Additional volunteers are welcome- start by subscribiing
>> to infrastructure-dev@apache.org (a public list).
>>
>> 2) svn has improved its merging capabilities since you last ran ooo on it.
>>
>> 3) as I mentioned our svn infrastructure performs well. we even have a
>> transparent
>> mirror in europe to cut down on cross-atlantic latency.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Stephan Bergmann<st...@googlemail.com>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 4:00:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
>>
>> What are the reasons? Is it "just" that there is no appropriate
>> infrastructure in place, or is there some general rule that Apache projects
>> must run on svn instead of something else?
>>
>> I'm asking because currently OOo runs on hg, and the short time we did run
>> on svn (after cvs, before hg), things were not working really ideally for
>> us.
>>
>> -Stephan
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Joe Schaefer<joe_schaefer@yahoo.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>> Not at this time, no. FWIW our Subversion server is very responsive,
>> even for largish codebases (yay SSDs).
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Damjan Jovanovic<da...@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 3:37:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
>>
>> OO.o is a very large project, it might be overkill for Subversion. Is
>> Git an option?
>>
>> Damjan
>>
>
>
>
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Jens-Heiner Rechtien <jh...@web.de>.
On 06/14/2011 05:22 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:08, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby<ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you see any serious problems if the code will go into svn in the
>>>> first step (which will last for a while)?
>>>
>>> I'd like to rephrase that question: does anybody here have any
>>> credible alternate proposal? To be credible, requires not just an
>>> outline of a plan, but actual volunteers with a demonstrated ability
>>> to follow through.
>>>
>>
>> If Git was going to be available at Apache in the future I am pretty sure
>> the LibreOffice developers would consider temporarily hosting a Git
>> repository for developers here to use.
>
> That is unworkable right now.
>
> Git has been "in the works" for several *years* now. We cannot rely on
> it appearing at any given point in time. Certainly not by the time
> that we want to release an Apache OOo.
>
> You also have authentication problems between Apache and the LO
> installation. You also have code guarantee problems (the ASF
> guarantees that third parties have not tampered with its development).
>
> Seriously. If it was "that easy", then Infra would have just set up a
> git repository and be done with it. But it isn't "that easy".
>
> There are thousands of open source projects using Subversion. And
> there are downstream users of those projects that do not use
> Subversion. I fail to see how this one is different. I also fail to
> see any credible reason that Subversion cannot handle the development
> here at Apache.
Before I comment on the SCM aspect, please let me introduce myself, as
I've just subscribed to this list. My name is Jens-Heiner Rechtien
(hr@openoffice.org). I've been with SO/OOo for more than 14 years, most
of the time as OOo release engineer and as technical lead of SO release
engineering.
I was quite involved in the evolution of the OOo SCM tooling from
PVCS->CVS->SVN->Mercurial over the years so maybe I can add my 2 cent here.
We migrated in 2008 from CVS to SVN and it was a horrible disaster right
from the start. Mostly my fault, as I relied on the SVN 1.5.x merge
tracking mechanism to replace our homegrown merge tracking on top of
CVS. Merge tracking was brand new in SVN at that time and just wasn't
polished enough to cope with the OOo development model (feature branches
with frequent merges from the main code line into the branches to keep
things current) and size.
I got it working more or less eventually, but the experience left
probably some deep scars in the OOo development community. I'm pretty
sure that SVN merge tracking has improved a lot in SVN 1.6.x but I'm not
convinced that some of the more intricate architectural problems with
SVN merge tracking are really solvable.
I guess it boils down which development model Apache OOo will follow. If
it's similar to the one we had before, with its heavy reliance on
feature branches I would definitely advise against SVN. If committers
simply want to commit directly from the workspaces into the main
development code line, thus branches are restricted to the occasional
release code line, than SVN is plenty good enough.
As for DSCMs, both Git and Mercurial are suitable choices for OOo. We
decided in 2009 to use Mercurial mostly due to the perceived less steep
learning curve. IMHO this is still true but other aspects might be more
important nowadays and Git would certainly be a great choice.
Heiner
--
Jens-Heiner Rechtien
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:08, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you see any serious problems if the code will go into svn in the
>> > first step (which will last for a while)?
>>
>> I'd like to rephrase that question: does anybody here have any
>> credible alternate proposal? To be credible, requires not just an
>> outline of a plan, but actual volunteers with a demonstrated ability
>> to follow through.
>>
>
> If Git was going to be available at Apache in the future I am pretty sure
> the LibreOffice developers would consider temporarily hosting a Git
> repository for developers here to use.
That is unworkable right now.
Git has been "in the works" for several *years* now. We cannot rely on
it appearing at any given point in time. Certainly not by the time
that we want to release an Apache OOo.
You also have authentication problems between Apache and the LO
installation. You also have code guarantee problems (the ASF
guarantees that third parties have not tampered with its development).
Seriously. If it was "that easy", then Infra would have just set up a
git repository and be done with it. But it isn't "that easy".
There are thousands of open source projects using Subversion. And
there are downstream users of those projects that do not use
Subversion. I fail to see how this one is different. I also fail to
see any credible reason that Subversion cannot handle the development
here at Apache.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
Hi Dennis,
On 14.06.2011 18:05, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> My impression, and it is only an impression, is that SVN is more
> transparent and the web interfaces for it are valuable as part of
> that. One problem with how I see git/hg being used is that work
> happens substantially out of view and there is a secondary process
> for pushing/pulling changes. (Patches are about the same in terms of
> diff submissions to someone who then applies them to something.)
> Also, merging and resolution of collisions, in my limited
> understanding, becomes the responsibility of the SVN committer and
> not a burden on someone who is curating the central code body.
A tool never it wrong or right, good or bad, it depends on how you use
it. They way we used Mercurial at OOo combined the advantages of a DSCM
with the transparency of a centralized SCM, at the cost of some release
management burden. I have developed some models how we could reduce the
latter until it nearly vanishes but still keep the advantages, but they
never have been put into work.
Indeed merging and conflict resolution always should be a duty of the
developers who caused them, not anybody else. But that is not a matter
of the SCM, just a matter of how you use it.
> These are only impressions and I need more experience before I can
> claim any expertise, but I find the git projects I have observed to
> be a little worrisome because they seem difficult to observe.
>
> Having a specific coherent on-line SVN repository that has the ground
> truth, that can be viewed on the web, and that can be moved into
> working collections by anyone has a great deal of appeal to me (plus
> I already use SVN for other purposes, so that's a factor as well).
> And staying updated on the part of the tree one is interested in (or
> all of it) is very straightforward with SVN.
On hg.services.openoffice.org you can see not only the "central"
repositories of all OOo releases, but also the work done in child
workspaces. So you have full transparency.
OK, only if the developers committed and pushed their work, but that is
not so much different to svn. If developers not only commit, but also
push, there's not difference. Again, it's not the tools but how you use it.
The web interfaces and the tools around Mercurial are just great and
there's nearly nothing you can't do. I'm sure that's the same with git.
Regards,
Mathias
RE: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
My impression, and it is only an impression, is that SVN is more transparent and the web interfaces for it are valuable as part of that. One problem with how I see git/hg being used is that work happens substantially out of view and there is a secondary process for pushing/pulling changes. (Patches are about the same in terms of diff submissions to someone who then applies them to something.) Also, merging and resolution of collisions, in my limited understanding, becomes the responsibility of the SVN committer and not a burden on someone who is curating the central code body.
These are only impressions and I need more experience before I can claim any expertise, but I find the git projects I have observed to be a little worrisome because they seem difficult to observe.
Having a specific coherent on-line SVN repository that has the ground truth, that can be viewed on the web, and that can be moved into working collections by anyone has a great deal of appeal to me (plus I already use SVN for other purposes, so that's a factor as well). And staying updated on the part of the tree one is interested in (or all of it) is very straightforward with SVN.
The ease of non-committers to derive patches is also a valuable provision and practice.
Finally, I am uncomfortable with this material being hosted on a site that is not part of the Apache infrastructure, especially considering the work needed to establish its provenance, the appropriate state for Apache, etc.
And the availability of read-only access via git (however that works) seems like sufficient-for-now, the least-that-could-possibly-work agile goodness.
- Dennis
More anecdotal experience:
Because I couldn't figure out any other way to do it, I just did a checkout of the full incubator project trunk on SVN. That was fun. There's a lot on the tooling that Apache uses for maintenance of project materials. Generating a patch for a correction to the site-author/projects/openofficeorg.xml podling page (where my UserID was wrong) was a bit painful, since that apparently had to be done at the root of what I checked out and it ran a while before finding that there was but the one change to make a patch from. And after I extracted the patch, I had to delete my change from the working copy and do an update to restore the unpatched current-version of that page to my working copy. (I was smarter this time, and I just did an update of the site-author/projects working copy to get the new page that Sam Ruby made. I think it is just practice.)
[Still learning, as you can tell.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:simon@webmink.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 08:09
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you see any serious problems if the code will go into svn in the
> > first step (which will last for a while)?
>
> I'd like to rephrase that question: does anybody here have any
> credible alternate proposal? To be credible, requires not just an
> outline of a plan, but actual volunteers with a demonstrated ability
> to follow through.
>
If Git was going to be available at Apache in the future I am pretty sure
the LibreOffice developers would consider temporarily hosting a Git
repository for developers here to use.
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you see any serious problems if the code will go into svn in the
> > first step (which will last for a while)?
>
> I'd like to rephrase that question: does anybody here have any
> credible alternate proposal? To be credible, requires not just an
> outline of a plan, but actual volunteers with a demonstrated ability
> to follow through.
>
If Git was going to be available at Apache in the future I am pretty sure
the LibreOffice developers would consider temporarily hosting a Git
repository for developers here to use.
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you see any serious problems if the code will go into svn in the
> first step (which will last for a while)?
I'd like to rephrase that question: does anybody here have any
credible alternate proposal? To be credible, requires not just an
outline of a plan, but actual volunteers with a demonstrated ability
to follow through.
The ASF infrastructure team has been burned several times by requests
of the form "how hard would it be to do 'X'" where X is something as
simple as install a wiki or whatever, followed by a brief period of
actual participation, inevitably followed by volunteers moving on to
other things after their particular itch has been scratched, leaving
the infrastructure team holding the bag.
If a plan appears credible, typically some sort of experimental zone
is set up for participants to experiment with. Joe and others can
also connect people who are interested in git with like-minded others
who can share experiences and workload.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
ASF Infra provides GIT for readonly: http://git.apache.org/
This might already help for some people.
As far as I know the GIT writing is in the makings but finished. I
heard it will take another good while to become truth.
I don't want to start a flame war - but it has been said ASF SVN can
handle the volume of the code. And Git reading is available.
Do you see any serious problems if the code will go into svn in the
first step (which will last for a while)?
Otherwise I am afraid there are no options - of course maybe Joe or
somebody else from infra can comment this too.
Cheers,
Christian
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> One factor we need to consider is making it easy to collaborate with
> peer/downstream projects, per the podling proposal. LibreOffice has imported
> all the code into Git, and I'd assume that downstream projects like
> RedOffice are using either Mercurial or Git as well. While SVN is obviously
> the Apache standard, it would probably be better to use Git for this project
> given both its size and the choices made elsewhere in the OOo community.
>
> S.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> Date: 13 June 2011 21:05:52 GMT+01:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
>
>
> 1) volunteers are working on git hosting, but it's taking longer than
> we expected. Additional volunteers are welcome- start by subscribiing
> to infrastructure-dev@apache.org (a public list).
>
> 2) svn has improved its merging capabilities since you last ran ooo on it.
>
> 3) as I mentioned our svn infrastructure performs well. we even have a
> transparent
> mirror in europe to cut down on cross-atlantic latency.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 4:00:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
>
> What are the reasons? Is it "just" that there is no appropriate
> infrastructure in place, or is there some general rule that Apache projects
> must run on svn instead of something else?
>
> I'm asking because currently OOo runs on hg, and the short time we did run
> on svn (after cvs, before hg), things were not working really ideally for
> us.
>
> -Stephan
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com
>>wrote:
>
> Not at this time, no. FWIW our Subversion server is very responsive,
> even for largish codebases (yay SSDs).
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 3:37:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed short term goals
>
> OO.o is a very large project, it might be overkill for Subversion. Is
> Git an option?
>
> Damjan
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:24, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>wrote:
>
>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> > One factor we need to consider is making it easy to collaborate with
>> > peer/downstream projects, per the podling proposal. LibreOffice has
>> > imported all the code into Git
>>
>> I'm not a LibreOffice developer, and the code I contributed to
>> OpenOffice.org is outside core, but I believe an important factor here
>> is that, as far as I know, the current LibreOffice setup has 20 or so
>> git repositories, which are meant to be consolidated into one sooner or
>> later, with a non-trivial migration.
>>
>> So, if we aim at collaboration, the choice is not only about technology
>> but also about repository layout; and this of course makes the picture
>> much more complex, because you can't satisfy everybody.
>>
>
> Totally agree. But the time to consider and negotiate it is now before
> anything is carved in stone.
Fair enough. As long as that negotiation results in "svn", then we're
off to a great start.
:-P
Cheers,
-g
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
> > One factor we need to consider is making it easy to collaborate with
> > peer/downstream projects, per the podling proposal. LibreOffice has
> > imported all the code into Git
>
> I'm not a LibreOffice developer, and the code I contributed to
> OpenOffice.org is outside core, but I believe an important factor here
> is that, as far as I know, the current LibreOffice setup has 20 or so
> git repositories, which are meant to be consolidated into one sooner or
> later, with a non-trivial migration.
>
> So, if we aim at collaboration, the choice is not only about technology
> but also about repository layout; and this of course makes the picture
> much more complex, because you can't satisfy everybody.
>
Totally agree. But the time to consider and negotiate it is now before
anything is carved in stone.
S.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:22, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> One factor we need to consider is making it easy to collaborate with
>> peer/downstream projects, per the podling proposal. LibreOffice has
>> imported all the code into Git
>
> I'm not a LibreOffice developer, and the code I contributed to
> OpenOffice.org is outside core, but I believe an important factor here
> is that, as far as I know, the current LibreOffice setup has 20 or so
> git repositories, which are meant to be consolidated into one sooner or
> later, with a non-trivial migration.
>
> So, if we aim at collaboration, the choice is not only about technology
> but also about repository layout; and this of course makes the picture
> much more complex, because you can't satisfy everybody.
This is a very good point.
When I made the suggestion for Apache's Subversion repository (eeks!
years ago now!), that was "one big repository". We've found it very
useful because we can shift codebases around very easily. No lost
history. No migrations.
And remember that ALL the code falls under the ASF's banner. It is
entirely possible to have code "belong" to Project Foo one day, and
then move it over to Project Bar the next.
Cheers,
-g
ps. people tend to create multiple git repositories because lumping
them together is too costly for the devs to clone. with svn, you check
out only what you need. the "whole repository" approach does not
create any inherent problems.
Re: Subversion & Git (was: Proposed short term goals)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
Simon Phipps wrote:
> One factor we need to consider is making it easy to collaborate with
> peer/downstream projects, per the podling proposal. LibreOffice has
> imported all the code into Git
I'm not a LibreOffice developer, and the code I contributed to
OpenOffice.org is outside core, but I believe an important factor here
is that, as far as I know, the current LibreOffice setup has 20 or so
git repositories, which are meant to be consolidated into one sooner or
later, with a non-trivial migration.
So, if we aim at collaboration, the choice is not only about technology
but also about repository layout; and this of course makes the picture
much more complex, because you can't satisfy everybody.
Regards,
Andrea.