[argyllcms] Re: ArgyllCMS source code version control
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:14:17 +1000
Nic Nilov wrote:
Indeed they exist, but those only keep track on the release scale, that is, every commit
reflects a whole release. This approach is only marginally useful since the amount of
changes between the releases is so large. At approximately +4000 -2000 LOC changed between
minor releases and tens of thousands of changes between major releases it's just not a
meaningful scale to get a feel of the developments. This also offers no insight
feature-wise, as its just a plain diff of two code snapshots.
Agreed. But checking in and documenting such small scale changes is exactly
the overhead I can't justify for a one person project. Having attempted
this at one stage, my feeling was that 20-30% of my mental capacity was being
used up on this activity. I'd rather use that for solving problems, researching
solutions and cutting code.
But where is the overhead? Setting up a repo on github and uploading the sources only
takes minutes and pretty much never needs any more attention.
That's not my experience. Making sure the SCCS keeps track of where
code has gone, worrying about what was and wasn't going to be checked in,
as well as breaking up development into small enough pieces that checkins
made sense, really slowed me down. Having to check that the build reflected
what was checked in was an overhead. What happened eventually was that checkins
got further and further apart, until they weren't worth doing.
Now when there is more than one person involved, the equation changes -
a SCCS becomes an essential tool in communication
I do assume you are using git (or something) locally to
track your changes. It's just one short command away from also keeping the remote copy in
sync.
Nope. I tried it, and it was too much overhead.
(And yes, I have been used to using a SCCS when working with a team.)
Where to take it from there is up to you and is all completely optional. Again, I do
assume you are familiar with branching. Although it arguably offers more benefits for
collaborative work, it is also useful for lone developers just to keep the scopes of work
separate and therefore more manageable. Here is a writeup detailing one branching approach
https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/feature-branch-workflow, but
like I said, this all is completely optional and up to taste.
I'm happy to acknowledge the advantages you mention. The learning
curve of a particular SCCS is an big issue for me - it's like trying to run
with one leg tied behind your back, and that learning effort could be put
to so many other uses (i.e. learning a GUI toolkit well enough that I
could code a graphic interface for ArgyllCMS for instance.)
It is more about a kind of a todo
list, with the benefit of building up the context around the original idea. The context
can be evolved by your own elaboration, input from others if you open to that, and
technical conveniences like cross-referencing the code.
I appreciate what you say - there's certainly something in that.
But frankly, I can't afford to spend much energy on possibly future
enhancements to ArgyllCMS - it is a financial dead end at the moment,
so my planning is mainly directed at other projects. My current aim with
ArgyllCMS is to keep it relevant and keep it working. Donations
are very important in allowing me to continue to do that.
All this would change if a company licensed it as the basis of a product
that would pay significant royalties - something that continues to be
threatened,
but (as yet) hasn't eventuated.
Cheers,
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
