Re: Google Summer of Code

Aldrik KLEBER <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Le Jeudi 20 Avril 2006 11:56, James Blackwell a écrit :
> Thanks for the reply! I always look forward to your pearls of wisdom. =)
>
> I'll stick to the technical aspects of your post. I don't feel comfortable
> commenting upon my previous employer. I recommend that you contact them
> directly if you have any questions. More clearly: I'm not part
> of "you folks at Canonical." and have not been since 3 April. =)
>
> Speaking of which, I'm looking for a new employer in this dog-eat-dog
> world. I've had some successes in making some appointments but haven't
> gotten anything solid yet. I think that my resume needs further grooming
> to get the fluffy stuff right. What recommendations do you make? Its at:
> http://jblack.linuxguru.net/~jblack/resume/
>
> My previous post was about revision control systems in general with some
> hints on how smart pruning could be a way for gnuarch to regain the
> logical lead what gnuarch could do to take over the DRCS world.
>
> I'll have to rely on the experience of others as concerns GIT.
>
> I'll amplify and clarify upon my previous posts in the hope that you can
> better understand. :)
>
>  1. Over the last almost three years I've worked on trying to get dozens,
> if not hundreds, of projects migrate to one DRCS or another.
>
>  2. New CVS and Subversion adoptions are both much, much, much more common
>     then all of the decentralized revision control systems combined.
>
>  3. Decentralized Revision Control Systems generally require the
> downloading of much more data than Centralized Revision Control Systems. A
> get/branch under most any drcs takes some multiples of time than a
> equivilant CVS/SVN checkout.
>
>  4. Most decentralized revision controlled systems are not geared to work
>     well with limited history. Gnuarch is.
>
>  5. Part of the work for gnuarch is already done when it comes to avoiding
>     the copying of revisions. Outstanding is a modification to tag that I
>     introduced a long while back that would be smarter about copying
>     revisions.
>       1. I'm referring to the modification that I made in tag that does a
>          full copy of a branch if its tagged from a foreign archive.
>       2. Tag should behave differently. Instead of augomatically
>          cachreving if a foreign branch it should say something like
>          "Warning: This tag refers to a foreign branch. Please see
>                    tla help tag for details on this message and how to
>                    protect against it"
>  6. Record the ancestry with every commit. Don't copy Bazaar-1.x. As its
>     not done right.
>  7. Automatically prune all patchlogs that have been around for more than
>     50 revisions. That should be enough to find good ancestors for merges
>     and such. Perhaps a tunable variable on a branch per branch basis
>     would make sense.
>  7. For operations that need to go back further, get it from the last
>     revision to have it. It'll cost more, but won't be as necessary.
>  8. Ensure that cachedrevs have all patchlogs.
>
> These steps performed properly should give a very solid performance
> improvement for reasonable operations. Revisions will be smaller, things
> that require tree scans (including commits & merges) will also go much,
> much faster.
>

Having history permit merging. Better than choosing what isn't necesary for 
now through a number of revisions expiration, we can for example choose when 
doing a merging or a tag if we want to integrate history or not.

This can be interesting for cycle branch like a functionality branch.
For example with a alpha branch, when we tag to a beta branch, an option 
--no-history  can be interesting, i order to suppress only this branch 
history when merging or tagging.

Or when we merge a branch like bug-798, when we merge it

If we make 
tla export
tla import
We delete past history, and all history.

After we have : tla remove-log-version

That's why a simple option can be enough to automate more, and we have the 
possibility to delete logs in tla, so tla don't miss a lot of thing to manage 
well size history. IMHO



Aldrik
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 191 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBER19bjb5cY0n/yTgRAut2AJsHzvsAzg7m0SMK3jm6C/zC+BnBMgCeMue5
0ZFKGqo8a6laALojFenQm5E=
=YH5+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.