[beports] Re: Changeset 60

On 2008-05-19 at 09:41:05 [+0200], Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx> 
wrote:
> Am 19.05.2008 um 00:53 schrieb Jonathon Freeman:
> 
> > Ingo wrote:
> >
> >> That leads me to the next question: Is there a particular reason
> >> why only
> >> diffs are stored in the repository? I was originally hoping for a
> >> repository that actually stores the sources. This would be handy to
> >> work
> >> with (i.e. store intermediate states) and would also facilitate group
> >> porting efforts, which are pretty much inevitable for bigger
> >> projects.
> >
> > I think this is a very excellent way of doing it. Not only is it
> > pretty much
> > necessary for group efforts, but it would make my own one-man
> > efforts run a
> > little smoother I think.
> 
> Well, that's how MacPorts et al. do it, and it's easier to view the
> changes for visitors that way.

Nothing prevents us from additionally presenting a diff. Most repository 
browsers allow to show diffs on the fly anyway, so this really shouldn't be 
a problem.

> BePorter needs patches in the end, but
> it can't to my knowledge cope with patches against repositories yet.

If the whole source is mirrored, it could just as well download the patched 
sources directly.

> So that's two different things anyway.
> It could be that there is an Assembla size limit. We wouldn't need to
> care if we do move the SVN to a Haiku server.

Yep, SVN or an alternative. :-)

> However for any group porting efforts I would prefer not to do that in
> SVN, it is possible with vendor branches but cumbersome. Git[1] and
> the like are much more suited for the task of maintaining and merging
> multiple distributed branches. (Speaking of which, I have submitted
> some patches to Niels for their Git "hack" branch but haven't received
> any feedback since then...)
> It might make sense to set up repositories on a project basis though.
> So, for porting SVN or CVS projects we might use Git (don't know
> Mercurial[2]/Bazaar[3] too well, but Git seems easier to use on Haiku
> for now with the others' dependency on Python); for a project using
> Git obviously use Git, for a project using Bazaar use Bazaar etc.
> Personally I have found Git to better handle merges than SVN/CVS but
> it seems to lack an equivalent to the svn copy operation for files. If
> we don't want to or can't host such repositories on our own server,
> for Git repo.or.cz would be an option, for Bazaar launchpad.net.
> 
> Anyway, +1 for using *some* distributed versioning system for group
> efforts.

From what I've heard about git, it sounds quite nice at least, but I 
haven't really used git or any of the other distributed version control 
systems yet. I think it's definitely worth to examine whether any of them 
could be used for a unified ports tree. Or if not, whether a server could 
be set up to host individual repositories.

CU, Ingo

--
BePorts homepage - http://tools.assembla.com/BePorts
List archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/beports
Administrative contact: brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: