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
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-18 08:46:27

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
For corporate legal information go to: