[U-Boot-Users] Revision control systems
Hi Wolfgang,
Are you still considering switching from CVS to a distributed version control system? The following is a pretty interesting summary of a few of them: http://www.livejournal.com/users/bramcohen/17319.html?thread=163751
I've dabbled with ARCH (tla) and monotone (only since the weekend) to pull the u-boot CVS into a local repository and merge/control local changes while tracking the master repository. After reading the above article, I've been reading up on DARC as well.
With ARCH, my approach was to create a Sourceforge CVS -> ARCH master, using ARCH to create changesets that tracked the Sourceforge CVS master repository. I then created a "local master" ARCH repository and applied the "master master" patchsets to the "local master". I've had some problems tracking the master repository successfully.
Monotone looks promising because Linus was considering using it and because, according to the article, git closely resembles it. If you're going to grab a tiger tail, might as well grab the tail of the biggest one ;-) Monotone is designed to make multiple branches and multiple heads easy to create and merge, which seems to be a good way to go for tracking a master and simultaneously controlling local changes. I don't have enough time in on it to see how well it works in practice.
DARC looks very promising for slaving off a master repository with local changes. I like the idea of being able to easily forward a changeset to the Repository Master (you), and then, when it gets accepted, undo the local changeset and apply the master changeset. ARCH can be used this way but DARC appears to be structured more for this type of usage with its emphasis on independent commutable patches. How well it works in practice remains to be seen...
Thanks, gvb
Dear Jerry,
in message 4293794C.5020206@smiths-aerospace.com you wrote:
Are you still considering switching from CVS to a distributed version control system? The following is a pretty interesting summary of a few of them: http://www.livejournal.com/users/bramcohen/17319.html?thread=163751
Yes, I am - thanks a lot for the pointer!
The fact that we're not further down that road is caused by two issues: lots of lack of time on my side, and the changes of the toolchain used for the Linux kernel.
At the moment I feel a tendency to follow the LInux kernel and use the same tool chain, too - as I don't have any clear personal preferences yet (and not enough time to play around and develop such) I think it is more important to chose ONE toolchain instead of which one. However, I still hope that when the dust settles there will be some other solution but git. It's not really clear to me if Linux has settled with git forever, or if it's only a stepping stone on the way.
Comments and input welcome!
With ARCH, my approach was to create a Sourceforge CVS -> ARCH master, using ARCH to create changesets that tracked the Sourceforge CVS master repository. I then created a "local master" ARCH repository and applied the "master master" patchsets to the "local master". I've had some problems tracking the master repository successfully.
Do you have something like a step-by-step description one could esily follow, and especially a little more details about the problems you mentioned?
Monotone looks promising because Linus was considering using it and because, according to the article, git closely resembles it. If you're going to grab a tiger tail, might as well grab the tail of the biggest one ;-) Monotone is designed to make multiple branches and multiple heads easy to create and merge, which seems to be a good way to go for tracking a master and simultaneously controlling local changes. I don't have enough time in on it to see how well it works in practice.
:-( I am _especially_ interested in practical usage information about Monotone.
DARC looks very promising for slaving off a master repository with local changes. I like the idea of being able to easily forward a changeset to the Repository Master (you), and then, when it gets accepted, undo the local changeset and apply the master changeset. ARCH can be used this way but DARC appears to be structured more for this type of usage with its emphasis on independent commutable patches. How well it works in practice remains to be seen...
I have to admit that I didn't know much about darcs before. I'm under the impression that monotone is still a more likely candidate for being the Linux kernel tool of choice, or am I wrong?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Jerry,
[snip]
With ARCH, my approach was to create a Sourceforge CVS -> ARCH master, using ARCH to create changesets that tracked the Sourceforge CVS master repository. I then created a "local master" ARCH repository and applied the "master master" patchsets to the "local master". I've had some problems tracking the master repository successfully.
Do you have something like a step-by-step description one could esily follow, and especially a little more details about the problems you mentioned?
Attached is a web page snapshot of my internal notes. The problems that I have are most likely due to my manual synchronizing and messing up, not due to ARCH itself.
Monotone looks promising because Linus was considering using it and because, according to the article, git closely resembles it. If you're going to grab a tiger tail, might as well grab the tail of the biggest one ;-) Monotone is designed to make multiple branches and multiple heads easy to create and merge, which seems to be a good way to go for tracking a master and simultaneously controlling local changes. I don't have enough time in on it to see how well it works in practice.
:-( I am _especially_ interested in practical usage information about Monotone.
I'll continue playing with monotone and report what I find. Merging changes was a real pain for more than trivial changes. It likely was my fault: it uses gvimdiff, which I had not used before. My problem was that it was an interactive operation that either worked completely or it started over from the begining, no stopping half way and restarting. Grrrrrrrrrrrr. I had a quite a few files to merge so it took me way too many tries before completing (presumably) successfully.
DARC looks very promising for slaving off a master repository with local changes. I like the idea of being able to easily forward a changeset to the Repository Master (you), and then, when it gets accepted, undo the local changeset and apply the master changeset. ARCH can be used this way but DARC appears to be structured more for this type of usage with its emphasis on independent commutable patches. How well it works in practice remains to be seen...
I have to admit that I didn't know much about darcs before. I'm under the impression that monotone is still a more likely candidate for being the Linux kernel tool of choice, or am I wrong?
Darc appears to be much easier to use than ARCH. I know I had to do a lot of recipe building with ARCH because I struggled to remember what had to be done in what order. All the darc review/feedback that I've been reading talks about how much easier it is to use (granted, all the pages were "how I switched from ARCH to darc" so they are biased :-)
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
What I really like about ARCH and darc is the changeset cherry picking. It isn't clear that monotone would give me that capability as easily. I don't have enough experience to say for sure, however. What I want to do is: 1) Stay in sync with the u-boot master repository 2) Source control our local customizations 3) Easily submit changesets to the master repository 4) If a changeset is rejected, keep the changes locally without having to forever screw around with editing it out of new changesets that I want to submit (i.e. easily and cleanly support delta changesets). 5) If a changeset is accepted, be able to merge the official version into my local tree without a lot of merging pain. With darc and ARCH (don't know about monotone) it appears that if I do changeset patches "right", I will be able to back out an accepted local changeset and then apply the official changeset. Dependancies on other local changes can complicate this, obviously.
Disclaimer: If I were smarter, all of the above is probably do-able with any source control system (even PVCS Dimensions ;-).
Thanks, gvb
Dear Jerry,
in message 4293A43A.7070306@smiths-aerospace.com you wrote:
Attached is a web page snapshot of my internal notes. The problems that
Thanks a lot. I really appreciate your help (and the style you woirk and document your work, too!).
I'll continue playing with monotone and report what I find. Merging changes was a real pain for more than trivial changes. It likely was my
...
Darc appears to be much easier to use than ARCH. I know I had to do a lot of recipe building with ARCH because I struggled to remember what had to be done in what order. All the darc review/feedback that I've been reading talks about how much easier it is to use (granted, all the pages were "how I switched from ARCH to darc" so they are biased :-)
After some more reading I feel it boils down to a decision between monotone and darc.
I would like to ask: who of you is actively using one or the other, what are your experiences, which problems did you run into, etc. If you have any "please use ... because ..." or "don't use ... because ..." statements I'd appreciate these, too.
But I'd rather not flood this list with such a discussion - please send any such input to my direct address (wd@denx.de). I'll be happy to post a summary.
What I really like about ARCH and darc is the changeset cherry picking. It isn't clear that monotone would give me that capability as easily.
If it's not available/good enough not today, it will come soon, I think. The good thing of dropping BK for kernel development is that a lot of new power now goes into the development of free software alternatives.
I don't have enough experience to say for sure, however. What I want to do is:
- Stay in sync with the u-boot master repository
Additionally, I want to get rid of a central repository because it does not match the way work gets done these days.
- Source control our local customizations
- Easily submit changesets to the master repository
- If a changeset is rejected, keep the changes locally without having to forever screw around with editing it out of new changesets that I want to submit (i.e. easily and cleanly support delta changesets).
- If a changeset is accepted, be able to merge the official version into my local tree without a lot of merging pain. With darc and
...
Agreed completely.
Disclaimer: If I were smarter, all of the above is probably do-able with any source control system (even PVCS Dimensions ;-).
Ummm.. I guess you meant "If I were smarter and had more time, ..." - yes, I know exactly what you mean ;-)
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Jerry,
[snip]
I would like to ask: who of you is actively using one or the other, what are your experiences, which problems did you run into, etc. If you have any "please use ... because ..." or "don't use ... because ..." statements I'd appreciate these, too.
But I'd rather not flood this list with such a discussion - please send any such input to my direct address (wd@denx.de). I'll be happy to post a summary.
[snip]
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Just as an addendum to this discussion that is of general interest, on the darcs web site I found "Taylor" http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor which synchronizes different types of repositories (e.g. CVS -> monotone, CVS -> darcs). It will even push changes back to CVS if you are adventurous.
I haven't tried it yet, but it looks incredibly useful.
gvb
On 5/26/05, Jerry Van Baren gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com wrote:
Just as an addendum to this discussion that is of general interest, on the darcs web site I found "Taylor" http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor which synchronizes different types of repositories (e.g. CVS -> monotone, CVS -> darcs). It will even push changes back to CVS if you are adventurous.
There is a similiar tool available for ARCH called tla-cvs-sync: http://wiki.gnuarch.org/tla_2dtools
I used it awhile ago to sync my local u-boot ARCH repository to the main CVS repository -- worked very well.
Cliff
participants (3)
-
Cliff Brake -
Jerry Van Baren -
Wolfgang Denk