CVS repository changes... (and what's left to do)

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

Ok, got a few extra hours tonight, so I just did it! :-)

The old "xml-cocoon2" repository has been moved to "cocoon-2-historic", but
a symlink with the old name is preserved so that you can do those nifty "cvs
diff" and see what _you_ changed in there...

Same thing happened for "xml-cocoon", renamed to "cocoon-1", but preserving
the old name as a symlink, and "xml-cocoon2-apps" renamed to "cocoon-2-apps"
(old name preserved, but should I just blast this? Nicola-Ken?)...

Two new repositories have been created, containing the latest CVS versions
of 2.0 and 2.1, those are called, respectively, "cocoon-2.0" and
"cocoon-2.1"... Do a checkout and tell me there's something wrong with them.

If you were working on something in the "old" repository, the easiest way to
do this is by doing the following:

# cd ~/checkouts/xml-cocoon2
# cvs diff -u3 > /tmp/patch
# cd ~/checkouts
# cvs co cocoon-2.1
# cd cocoon-2.1
# cvs update -Apd
# patch -p0 < /tmp/patch
# rm -f /tmp/patch

Windows folks, please translate the above POSIX shell commands in something
suitable in your environment! :-)

Now, the only things left to do are removing the symlinks with the old names
once you're all happy with the changes, and fixing up various bits in the
mail system, but I can do that in a few days, once everyone has its local
copy of Cocoon checked out right on his machine (like, me... Gotta update
the copies at work tomorrow)...

Now, call me "fascist" :-) if you want, but to avoid people to commit back
to the old repository names, I've removed YOU ALL karma to the old
repositories... I call it "defensive administration" :-) It's a concept that
Brian taught me back in 1997... If you want to commit, you'll have to use
the new repository names (so, as outlined above, do the patch against the
old repo, checkout the new one, apply the patch, and commit)...

Note, on my Netra-T1, now updating the whole repository for Cocoon 2.1 takes
less than 1/3 of the time it required before! :-) :-)

Have fun! :-)

    Pier (yes, in case of emergencies, we can revert back in 15 minutes)

RE: CVS repository changes... (and what's left to do)

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>]

Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> You have a _proposal_ in your hands... Now we can vote! :-)
>
Ok, can you please summarize it here as text? Then we can discuss(!)
- and not already vote.

> > I appreciate your work, BUT as even Stefano pointed out in the past,
> > it is IMHO not good to call the new cvs cocoon-2.0 rsp. cocoon-2.1
> > because this will lead to a new repository for each version, and this
> > is really not the best idea.
>
> Ehehmm... Why? You want to keep on branching? So that everytime
> you have to
> do a checkout, and update or anything you have to waste _minutes_ in
> processing old directories containing only Attic and 5 meg long files
> containing N versions of basically what are two different designs?
>
So what is your proposal then? We have 2.0 repository, a 2.1? And then
a 2.1.1 and a 2.1.2 and a 2.2 and ...? Sorry, but I really don't get this.
Will we create a new repo with every release?

> > I think we agreed to rename the xml-cocoon2 cvs to simply cocoon and
> > I don't see a point why we should make two repositories for 2.0 and 2.1.
> > Why are the branches not sufficient?
>
> I would suggest you reading the Subversion introduction, it
> explains all the
> design flaws of RCS/CVS and what Subversion is trying to do in that
> regard... Branches are not a constant-time operation... Emptying directory
> trees puts a heck of a lot of strain on the servers (you have to
> traverse it
> anyhow).. It works, but it's a hack...
>
> Sow... Subversion on the other hand... :-)
>
Subversion? We are currently using cvs, so it doesn't help me to read
something about subversion. And personally I don't care if it is a
constant-time operation or not. If the solution is fast but not intuitiv
it doesn't help me.

> > So, unfortunately you already renamed them...I think it's best to revert
> > your changes asap, then we as a community can decide about the new
> > layout and then rename/move whatever. Do you think that this is a good
> > approach?
>
> Have you tried working _exactly_ like yesterday? Did you notice any
> difference? What did your CVS client say? Any problem?
>
I even haven't tried because you wrote:
>>>
> Now, call me "fascist"  if you want, but to avoid people to commit back
> to the old repository names, I've removed YOU ALL karma to the old
> repositories...
<<<<

>From my point of view this means I cannot commit to the old repos, so why
should I try it?

Again, I really don't get why we can't discuss this proposal via email.
If we would discuss a design we wouldn't implement it first and then
vote on it, wouldn't we?
So, sorry, perhaps I'm dumb but currently I'm totally confused.

Carsten

Re: CVS repository changes... (and what's left to do)

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

On 27/2/03 7:30 am, "Carsten Ziegeler" <cz...@s-und-n.de> wrote:

> Hi Pier,
> 
> afaik we didn't voted/proposed or whatever to do the repository changes
> now. We said that we will do it sometime soon.

You have a _proposal_ in your hands... Now we can vote! :-)

> I appreciate your work, BUT as even Stefano pointed out in the past,
> it is IMHO not good to call the new cvs cocoon-2.0 rsp. cocoon-2.1
> because this will lead to a new repository for each version, and this
> is really not the best idea.

Ehehmm... Why? You want to keep on branching? So that everytime you have to
do a checkout, and update or anything you have to waste _minutes_ in
processing old directories containing only Attic and 5 meg long files
containing N versions of basically what are two different designs?

> I think we agreed to rename the xml-cocoon2 cvs to simply cocoon and
> I don't see a point why we should make two repositories for 2.0 and 2.1.
> Why are the branches not sufficient?

I would suggest you reading the Subversion introduction, it explains all the
design flaws of RCS/CVS and what Subversion is trying to do in that
regard... Branches are not a constant-time operation... Emptying directory
trees puts a heck of a lot of strain on the servers (you have to traverse it
anyhow).. It works, but it's a hack...

Sow... Subversion on the other hand... :-)

> So, unfortunately you already renamed them...I think it's best to revert
> your changes asap, then we as a community can decide about the new
> layout and then rename/move whatever. Do you think that this is a good
> approach?

Have you tried working _exactly_ like yesterday? Did you notice any
difference? What did your CVS client say? Any problem?

    Pier

RE: CVS repository changes... (and what's left to do)

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>]

Hi Pier,

afaik we didn't voted/proposed or whatever to do the repository changes
now. We said that we will do it sometime soon.
I appreciate your work, BUT as even Stefano pointed out in the past,
it is IMHO not good to call the new cvs cocoon-2.0 rsp. cocoon-2.1
because this will lead to a new repository for each version, and this
is really not the best idea.

I think we agreed to rename the xml-cocoon2 cvs to simply cocoon and
I don't see a point why we should make two repositories for 2.0 and 2.1.
Why are the branches not sufficient?

So, unfortunately you already renamed them...I think it's best to revert
your changes asap, then we as a community can decide about the new
layout and then rename/move whatever. Do you think that this is a good
approach?

Carsten

Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> Ok, got a few extra hours tonight, so I just did it! :-)
>
> The old "xml-cocoon2" repository has been moved to
> "cocoon-2-historic", but
> a symlink with the old name is preserved so that you can do those
> nifty "cvs
> diff" and see what _you_ changed in there...
>
> Same thing happened for "xml-cocoon", renamed to "cocoon-1", but
> preserving
> the old name as a symlink, and "xml-cocoon2-apps" renamed to
> "cocoon-2-apps"
> (old name preserved, but should I just blast this? Nicola-Ken?)...
>
> Two new repositories have been created, containing the latest CVS versions
> of 2.0 and 2.1, those are called, respectively, "cocoon-2.0" and
> "cocoon-2.1"... Do a checkout and tell me there's something wrong
> with them.
>
> If you were working on something in the "old" repository, the
> easiest way to
> do this is by doing the following:
>
> # cd ~/checkouts/xml-cocoon2
> # cvs diff -u3 > /tmp/patch
> # cd ~/checkouts
> # cvs co cocoon-2.1
> # cd cocoon-2.1
> # cvs update -Apd
> # patch -p0 < /tmp/patch
> # rm -f /tmp/patch
>
> Windows folks, please translate the above POSIX shell commands in
> something
> suitable in your environment! :-)
>
> Now, the only things left to do are removing the symlinks with
> the old names
> once you're all happy with the changes, and fixing up various bits in the
> mail system, but I can do that in a few days, once everyone has its local
> copy of Cocoon checked out right on his machine (like, me... Gotta update
> the copies at work tomorrow)...
>
> Now, call me "fascist" :-) if you want, but to avoid people to commit back
> to the old repository names, I've removed YOU ALL karma to the old
> repositories... I call it "defensive administration" :-) It's a
> concept that
> Brian taught me back in 1997... If you want to commit, you'll have to use
> the new repository names (so, as outlined above, do the patch against the
> old repo, checkout the new one, apply the patch, and commit)...
>
> Note, on my Netra-T1, now updating the whole repository for
> Cocoon 2.1 takes
> less than 1/3 of the time it required before! :-) :-)
>
> Have fun! :-)
>
>     Pier (yes, in case of emergencies, we can revert back in 15 minutes)
>

Re: CVS repository changes... (and what's left to do)

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

On 27/2/03 3:04, "Pier Fumagalli" <pi...@betaversion.org> wrote:

> Ok, got a few extra hours tonight, so I just did it! :-)

Final step is done... All CVS repositories are now owned by the "cocoon"
group... This means that from now on we (Cocoon PMC) are on our own, no more
piggybacking on Apache XML! :-)

    Pier