Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: OMPI git mirror on github.com
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-18 11:28:36


On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Mike Dubman <mike.ompi_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> re item (5):
>
> The current svn tree can be set as read-only and serve as a reference for old commit numbers.
> It is rarery used anyway to search through historic commit numbers and can be done in read-only historic tree.

I use it a lot for old commits, but agree it is read-only for that purpose.

>
> All other items can use svn interface of guthub and stay w/o any change.

Yeah, we've had experience with svn to git - no thanks!

>
> It is pretty minor change (mostly mental) and pretty big gain

Guess we can agree to disagree - I found git to be awkward and a royal pain, especially when someone commits without doing a rebase (which happens a lot). No thanks.

>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
> > That's pretty clever, actually (SVN and git effectively together in the same repo). Cool!
> >
> > However, migrating to git has all the same problems that I mentioned in the prior email to you. Is Mellanox volunteering to do all the work for conversion?
>
>
> I guess I should clarify -- here's what I previously sent to Mike in an off-list email about converting our main SVN repo to something else (e.g., Mercurial or Git). #3 is probably moot if we entirely move to github, but it would be replaced with "migrate all existing users to github" (which is a fair amount of work, too).
>
> -----
> We have *many* discussions a year or two ago about making Mercurial the primary repo, not SVN, and ultimately rejected it. There's many issues involved:
>
> 1. developer learning curve
> --> certainly not the biggest factor, but definitely a factor
> --> "rebase" would certainly be a big deal (so that people don't put back a million intermediate commits)
>
> 2. adapting all of OMPI's current scripting to use hg (or git)
> --> this is a fair amount of work
>
> 3. getting IU to host git instead of SVN
> --> they have a whole management system for SVN: users, permissions, etc. No such thing exists for git.
>
> 4. integrating Trac with git. Or migrating to a whole new bug tracker that supports git.
> --> this is an entire conversation in itself. Note that everyone hates bugzilla.
>
> 5. re-writing the SVN history to find all references to "rXXX" in commit messages and replace them with the relevant hg (git) unique commit hash
> --> someone would have to figure out how to script that
>
> So conversion would be a significant amount of work. Instead, we opted for our current modes of operation, which seem to be working well enough:
>
> - use the hg+svn or git+svn combo mechanisms to do actual development in hg/git and then push back up to svn when done
> - provide hg (and now git) official mirrors so that people can branch/clone from there, and then provide patches to commit when done with development
>
> In short -- I agree with you: moving to 100% hg/git would be nice. But it would be a lot of work that no one was willing to spend the time to do.
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel