[haiku-development] Re: Git/Hg: some speed tests

  • From: "Ingo Weinhold" <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 17:51:20 +0200

On Fri, 06 May 2011 16:55:07 +0200 "Brecht Machiels" <brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:57:37 +0200, Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>  
> wrote:
> >> 5 is more like it,
> >> and those should be dealt with before starting a new task (which is
> most
> >> probably what's hiding behind the need to interpret revision numbers).
> >> I could live with revision IDs only being 100% reliable on a clean  
> >> master.
> >
> > Of course I can somehow extract the information from the repository. If 
> > it were only about that the hashes would suffice just the same. The  
> > advantage of revision numbers is that the numbers themselves are  
> > comparable.
> 
> In 99% of the cases, this is also true for descriptors.

You might refer to some other kind of descriptors. The ones Oliver proposed are 
not comparable as soon as there are local changes. Which is what I replied to.

> > We appear to disagree on the categorization. The mechanism only working 
> > for unmodified clones of a haiku-central branch is a limitation which I 
> > do consider an issue.
> 
> This will be the same for any DVCS. The only reason it's not a problem for
> SVN, is because you're stuck with a central repository. And that has a lot
> of other disadvantages.

Do you intend to elaborate on what those "lot of other disadvantages" are? At 
least so far I was under the impression everyone agreed sticking with a central 
Haiku repository regardless of what tool we switch to.

> > Let's keep in mind for whom we're going to switch the VCS: For the  
> > developers, not the people who just want to build their own images.
> 
> A DVCS offers a lot of advantages for developers. Are you willing to  
> sacrifice all these just for sequential revision numbers?

You seem to suggest that it's either DVCS or sequential revision numbers. As 
Oliver originally proposed sequential revision numbers can be implemented with 
git via lightweight tags, so the choice is obviously not mutually exclusive. 
Alas the lightweight tag solution has performance issues, which is why we're 
discussing alternatives since a few mails. May I kindly request that you follow 
the discussion before replying?

> The lack of sequential revisions numbers will not be a major problem in  
> practice, and a lot of information can be stored during the build anyway.
> 
> With SVN, people can also spread altered builds, and you won't have access
> to this information. Therefore, I do understand why you make such a  
> problem out of this.

You're wrong. Currently (unless you build from VCS-less bare sources) a build 
from a locally modified haiku version *does* contain the number of the 
respective central revision it is based on.

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: