Re: cws tools: Would a "remote pull" of a given milestone to accelerate cws rebasing be possible

Hi,

On 06/03/2010 05:55 PM, Björn Michaelsen wrote:
> Am Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:28:00 +0200
> schrieb Jan Holesovsky<[email protected]>:
>
>>> Ah yeah, the magical touch of git which is able to make huge
>>> compressed changesets much smaller, almost vanishing in size. :-)
>>> Git might have a smaller storage for a given repository, granted,
>>> but I somehow doubt that it's able to transfer huge changesets much
>>> faster than Hg.
>>
>> Indeed, git is magical ;-)  In this case, on the server, the CWS
>> wouldn't be separate trees, but branches (in the git meaning of the
>> word), and so you wouldn't have to push all the changes that happened
>> in DEV300 in the meantime (if you have them in another brach, they are
>> reused) - ie. exactly what Christian wants.

Never in life I would want to have all branches (CWSs) in one 
repository. No way. Not with hg and not with git. Such things work well 
in a "pull-only" environment. But when every dev can push something to 
the rep. they need necessarily be separated - so I can simply drop the 
whole rep. if someone pushes something very stupid. And yes, these 
things happen.

> Just as mercurial would do if we would be using a multiple head repo
> instead of multiple heads. So git is no more magical there than hg. ;)
>
>> And even if they were separate trees, you are able to setup the trees
>> (CWSes in this case) trivially to search for the missing commits (and
>> objects, etc.) in the main tree (DEV300) first using 'alternates',
>> before expecting the client to push them all.

This is exactly what I meant with "reference rep." in the postscriptum 
of my mail to Christian. I'll look into it if this is possible with 
mercurial.

> Again that would actually be just as trivial with hg if we would not
> have that "one head repos!!1!eleven!" dogma. For example a hook could
> simply pull from DEV300 before applying a changeset. Or even simpler a
> cronjob pulling from DEV300 to the cws repos regularly would solve the
> problem.
>
> IMHO most devs are able to handle a two-head (master and cws) repo
> easily by now. But I guess Heiner has another opinion.

Most devs ..., yes. But we need everyone to handle this right. Remember, 
there are non-devs who also need to work with the setup. And, judging by 
the questions I have been answering lately, we aren't yet there to try 
out the fancy stuff :-)

Heiner