FWIW: Ralph, I think Mike is proposing that we use the built in github SVN functionality. I.E., you can use git or SVN - both can read or write to the same backend repo. Pretty clever of github, actually. See the github blog entry he referenced, if you
But I agree: although dvcs are very nice and have many upsides, this would be a large change and there are downsides, too. Would definitely require more discussion, developer buy in, and planning, at a minimum.
Sent from my phone. No type good.
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
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
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).
> 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?
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.
devel mailing list