[Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
93 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Beman Dawes
To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
suggest several concrete steps:

* Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
separate mailing list.

* Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!

* As a demonstration and proof-of-concept, a Boost library should
begin using Git. Presumably a public repository (on GitHub?) can
channel changes back to Boost svn. I'll volunteer the filesystem
library.

Comments?

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Ivan Le Lann

----- "Beman Dawes" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> Comments?
>

If some Boost developper find following thoughts useful,
he should feel free to add them on this page:

As a humble Boost user, I would appreciate to see
more or less official distributions. Four examples:

Boost
 + Accepted (pending)
   + Managed (has a review manager)
     + Candidates (sandbox pre-review maturation, probably a mess)

I think this could make the maturation, review and integration process more
structured and visible. I'm not suggesting to change Boost integration
process, but only to have VCS be a better mirror of it than current sandbox.

I fail to see how current combination of both central VCS and monolithic
code base can easily lead to that, without burdening Boost itself.
I'm not a VCS expert, but I thought DVCS forks could model this.

Ivan
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Robert Jones-2
In reply to this post by Beman Dawes
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Beman Dawes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
> suggest several concrete steps:
>
> * Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
> of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
> separate mailing list.
>
> * Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
> into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
> populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!
>
> * As a demonstration and proof-of-concept, a Boost library should
> begin using Git. Presumably a public repository (on GitHub?) can
> channel changes back to Boost svn. I'll volunteer the filesystem
> library.
>
>
Forgive me for being a bit slow here, but isn't 'moving beyond the
arm waving stage' exactly what the Ryppl effort is doing? Is there a
danger of treading on Ryppl's toes here?

(Sorry if I've misunderstood what's what!)

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Steven Watanabe-4
In reply to this post by Beman Dawes
AMDG

On 2/2/2011 7:44 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

> To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
> suggest several concrete steps:
>
> * Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
> of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
> separate mailing list.
>
> * Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
> into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
> populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!
>

The advantages look like a good start.  I'd like
to add:

Con:
* The migration itself will cause a certain amount of disruption
   (transient)
* Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
   (transient, subjective).
* Links to svn will be broken.  Trac and svn are currently
   heavily cross-linked.  If someone has a way to avoid this
   problem, I'd be more than happy to withdraw it.  (long-term).

(I'd just put this up, but I wanted to post here first
to make sure that I'm not just missing something and
that they're expressed in a fair way.)

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Daniel James-3
In reply to this post by Robert Jones-2
On 2 February 2011 16:49, Robert Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Forgive me for being a bit slow here, but isn't 'moving beyond the
> arm waving stage' exactly what the Ryppl effort is doing? Is there a
> danger of treading on Ryppl's toes here?

I don't think so, ryppl seems to be concerned with revolutionising
package management and build systems. This is an attempt to see how
git fits. I think that's a good idea.

Daniel
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Rene Rivera-2
In reply to this post by Steven Watanabe-4
On 2/2/2011 11:30 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:

> AMDG
>
> On 2/2/2011 7:44 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
>> suggest several concrete steps:
>>
>> * Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
>> of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
>> separate mailing list.
>>
>> * Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
>> into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
>> populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!
>>
>
> The advantages look like a good start. I'd like
> to add:
>
> Con:
> * The migration itself will cause a certain amount of disruption
> (transient)
> * Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
> (transient, subjective).
> * Links to svn will be broken. Trac and svn are currently
> heavily cross-linked. If someone has a way to avoid this
> problem, I'd be more than happy to withdraw it. (long-term).

If you want more criticism of Git.. You might want to read through the
docs for Fossil
<http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki>.
Ostensibly a better VCS, IMO ;-)


--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Oliver Kowalke-2
Am 02.02.2011 18:41, schrieb Rene Rivera:
> If you want more criticism of Git.. You might want to read through the
> docs for Fossil
> <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki>.
> Ostensibly a better VCS, IMO ;-)

this does not compare both vcs how git or fossil help the developer in
his daily work - the doesn't really help

Oliver
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Rene Rivera-2
On 2/2/2011 12:38 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> Am 02.02.2011 18:41, schrieb Rene Rivera:
>> If you want more criticism of Git.. You might want to read through the
>> docs for Fossil
>> <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki>.
>> Ostensibly a better VCS, IMO ;-)
>
> this does not compare both vcs how git or fossil help the developer in
> his daily work - the doesn't really help

You have to read more of the docs than just that one page to get an idea
of why Fossil is easier to use with the same "benefits" as Git. But the
points mentioned in that page do matter for this discussion as they
raise aspects regarding setup and maintenance.


--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

David Bergman-3
In reply to this post by Rene Rivera-2
On Feb 2, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:

> On 2/2/2011 11:30 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>> AMDG
>>
>> On 2/2/2011 7:44 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
>>> suggest several concrete steps:
>>>
>>> * Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
>>> of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
>>> separate mailing list.
>>>
>>> * Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
>>> into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
>>> populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!
>>>
>>
>> The advantages look like a good start. I'd like
>> to add:
>>
>> Con:
>> * The migration itself will cause a certain amount of disruption
>> (transient)
>> * Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
>> (transient, subjective).
>> * Links to svn will be broken. Trac and svn are currently
>> heavily cross-linked. If someone has a way to avoid this
>> problem, I'd be more than happy to withdraw it. (long-term).
>
> If you want more criticism of Git.. You might want to read through the docs for Fossil <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki>. Ostensibly a better VCS, IMO ;-)

I like Fossil, and have used it in some projects lately, instead of a GitHub solution. The whole idea of having commits, tickets and documentation (Wiki) in the same repository is quite attractive.

What I do not agree with in the their claims is that it is easier to handle than Git. Git is *conceptually* extremely simple, which is the beauty of it: a heap of two types of objects - commits and file trees - related in a DAG, where the branches and tags are just pointers to those heap-based objects. And this goes for everything in Git, including the "staging area" used and the (extremely useful for real world development) "stash" areas. I have never seen such conceptual clarity in a VCS - well, outside Darcs' patch theory, but patches are simply inferior to snapshots, for stability and performance-related reasons, IMHO. It is "just" that Linus (and others) created a host of convenience tools on top of that simple "DAG file system" ;-)

I do not see that simplicity in Fossil, really, but perhaps my vision is blurred somewhat by the goodies entangled into it, in the form of the aforementioned tickets and Wiki? And the separation of source tree (or working directory) and the local repository in Fossil adds complexity with another SQLite database containing the "staged" changes.

What is really cool about Fossil is that it is a one stop solution for a lot of projects, and that one can deal with tickets while offline, even changing their states.

/David
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Daniel Pfeifer-3
In reply to this post by Steven Watanabe-4
Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 09:30 -0800 schrieb Steven Watanabe:
> * Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
>    (transient, subjective).

No, they don't!
You can continue to use TortoiseSVN for example.
See: https://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support

cheers, Daniel


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Beman Dawes
In reply to this post by Daniel James-3
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Daniel James <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2 February 2011 16:49, Robert Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Forgive me for being a bit slow here, but isn't 'moving beyond the
>> arm waving stage' exactly what the Ryppl effort is doing? Is there a
>> danger of treading on Ryppl's toes here?
>
> I don't think so, ryppl seems to be concerned with revolutionising
> package management and build systems. This is an attempt to see how
> git fits. I think that's a good idea.

Ryppl was actually the inspiration for me looking seriously at Git,
since Ryppl requires Git, IIUC.

So getting (1) comfortable with Git is a prerequisite for Ryppl and
(2) I'm hoping that Git can be a net plus for Boost fairly soon,
whereas Ryppl still seems off in the future.

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Steven Watanabe-4
In reply to this post by Daniel Pfeifer-3
AMDG

On 2/2/2011 11:34 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 09:30 -0800 schrieb Steven Watanabe:
>> * Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
>>     (transient, subjective).
>
> No, they don't!
> You can continue to use TortoiseSVN for example.
> See: https://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support
>

"For now it's only read-only, but who knows what
will happen in the future!"  I doubt that it's
possible to make this work perfectly because
git and svn just handle some things differently.
Otherwise, why isn't git-svn good enough for those
who want to use git?

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Daniel James-3
On 2 February 2011 19:47, Steven Watanabe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> "For now it's only read-only, but who knows what
> will happen in the future!"

https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support

But not perfect.

Daniel
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Dean Michael Berris
In reply to this post by Steven Watanabe-4
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Steven Watanabe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> AMDG
>
> On 2/2/2011 11:34 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 09:30 -0800 schrieb Steven Watanabe:
>>>
>>> * Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
>>>    (transient, subjective).
>>
>> No, they don't!
>> You can continue to use TortoiseSVN for example.
>> See: https://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support
>>
>
> "For now it's only read-only, but who knows what
> will happen in the future!"  I doubt that it's
> possible to make this work perfectly because
> git and svn just handle some things differently.
> Otherwise, why isn't git-svn good enough for those
> who want to use git?
>

https://github.com/blog/644-subversion-write-support

That should be fine for people who want to keep using Subversion for
Git projects.

--
Dean Michael Berris
about.me/deanberris
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

David Bergman-3
In reply to this post by Steven Watanabe-4
On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:

> AMDG
>
> On 2/2/2011 11:34 AM, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, den 02.02.2011, 09:30 -0800 schrieb Steven Watanabe:
>>> * Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
>>>    (transient, subjective).
>>
>> No, they don't!
>> You can continue to use TortoiseSVN for example.
>> See: https://github.com/blog/626-announcing-svn-support
>>
>
> "For now it's only read-only, but who knows what
> will happen in the future!"  I doubt that it's
> possible to make this work perfectly because
> git and svn just handle some things differently.
> Otherwise, why isn't git-svn good enough for those
> who want to use git?

I have used git-svn quite successfully in two bigger projects - definitely many more commits than Boost - to create isomorphically embedded images in Git, including proper treatment of tags and branches - using the standard mapping. Yes, I did cull old history (such as "older than two years") admittedly... Additionally, in one of them, I continued to bridge Git and SVN for six months. Nope, I did not prove the isomorphism by subsequently exporting the Git repository ("git fast-export --all") back into a SVN repository, so can only formally claim "perceptual homomorphism"...

So, I would not say that git-svn is not good enough, in general, if the SVN project has reasonable (simplistic?) meta structures.

/David
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Beman Dawes
At Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:44:47 -0500,
Beman Dawes wrote:

>
> To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
> suggest several concrete steps:
>
> * Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
> of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
> separate mailing list.
>
> * Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
> into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
> populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!
>
> * As a demonstration and proof-of-concept, a Boost library should
> begin using Git. Presumably a public repository (on GitHub?) can
> channel changes back to Boost svn. I'll volunteer the filesystem
> library.
>
> Comments?

That could be interesting.

IMO Boost (and especially boost-in-Git) makes more sense when
modularized, though, so expect some things to seem quite different
once that's set up.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Robert Jones-2
At Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:49:41 +0000,
Robert Jones wrote:

>
> > To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
> > suggest several concrete steps:
> >
> > * Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
> > of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
> > separate mailing list.
> >
> > * Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
> > into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
> > populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
> > https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!
> >
> > * As a demonstration and proof-of-concept, a Boost library should
> > begin using Git. Presumably a public repository (on GitHub?) can
> > channel changes back to Boost svn. I'll volunteer the filesystem
> > library.
> >
> >
> Forgive me for being a bit slow here, but isn't 'moving beyond the
> arm waving stage' exactly what the Ryppl effort is doing? Is there a
> danger of treading on Ryppl's toes here?

Well, a little... but it can't hurt to experiment :-)

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Beman Dawes
At Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:35:10 -0500,
Beman Dawes wrote:

>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Daniel James <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2 February 2011 16:49, Robert Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Forgive me for being a bit slow here, but isn't 'moving beyond the
> >> arm waving stage' exactly what the Ryppl effort is doing? Is there a
> >> danger of treading on Ryppl's toes here?
> >
> > I don't think so, ryppl seems to be concerned with revolutionising
> > package management and build systems. This is an attempt to see how
> > git fits. I think that's a good idea.
>
> Ryppl was actually the inspiration for me looking seriously at Git,
> since Ryppl requires Git, IIUC.
>
> So getting (1) comfortable with Git is a prerequisite for Ryppl and
> (2) I'm hoping that Git can be a net plus for Boost fairly soon,
> whereas Ryppl still seems off in the future.

Just to clarify, let me say this now:

   Ryppl *will* be ready for Boost by Boostcon.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Steven Watanabe-4
At Wed, 02 Feb 2011 09:30:28 -0800,
Steven Watanabe wrote:

>
> AMDG
>
> On 2/2/2011 7:44 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> > To move discussion of Git beyond the arm waving stage, I'd like to
> > suggest several concrete steps:
> >
> > * Use the tag "[git]" to identify list postings discussing integration
> > of Git into Boost daily life. If that gets unwieldy, we can start a
> > separate mailing list.
> >
> > * Start building documentation, with a lot of the initial effort going
> > into rationale and "how to do it". To that end, I've started to
> > populate a "Git" hierarchy on the Trac wiki:
> > https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/GitHome. Please contribute!
> >
>
> The advantages look like a good start.  I'd like
> to add:
>
> Con:
> * The migration itself will cause a certain amount of disruption
>   (transient)
> * Those who just don't care will have to learn a new tool
>   (transient, subjective).
> * Links to svn will be broken.  Trac and svn are currently
>   heavily cross-linked.  If someone has a way to avoid this
>   problem, I'd be more than happy to withdraw it.  (long-term).

John's modularization project maintains a complete correspondence of
Git and SVN commits, so mapping those should be no problem.

> (I'd just put this up, but I wanted to post here first
> to make sure that I'm not just missing something and
> that they're expressed in a fair way.)

Thank you, I think that's totally fair.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Rene Rivera-2
At Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:41:45 -0600,
Rene Rivera wrote:
>
> If you want more criticism of Git.. You might want to read through the
> docs for Fossil
> <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki>. Ostensibly
> a better VCS, IMO ;-)

This isn't about choosing the best VCS.  It's about choosing the best
VCS with the most momentum, that will continue to be maintained, and
that has a design most appropriate to Boost's future.

Your page says:

   The Git model works best for large projects, like the Linux kernel
   for which Git was designed. Linus Torvalds does not need or want to
   see a thousand different branches, one for each contributor...

   Fossil is designed for smaller and non-hierarchical teams where all
   developers are operating directly on the master branch, or at most
   a small number of well defined branches....

and:

   Git has a huge user community. If following the herd and being like
   everybody else is important to you, then you should choose Git.

   Fossil is clearly the "road less traveled"

These points all speak in favor of Git for Boost.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
12345