From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6281 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2011 20:55:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 6267 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2011 20:55:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:54:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DKsk9m004896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:54:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9DKsjmP020372; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:54:45 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GIT and CVS References: Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Joseph S. Myers's message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:20:44 +0000 (UTC)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 "Joseph S. Myers" writes: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Phil Muldoon wrote: > >> So why are we still on CVS? I'm not a release manager, so I do not have > > Because the complications associated with having many projects in the same > repository are a lot of work to disentangle, and it is a lot of work to do > the conversion (including all the infrastructure scripts, user > instructions etc.) for any one project. > > I think binutils+gdb is the right unit to aim for getting into a separate > repository, as discussed in > . Ok, thanks for your response. Beyond the reason why they were in the same repository for how many years, why do they still have to be? I can understand that projects so closely involved need to be in lock-step in their release objectives, but with healthy communities for each project, do they need to be still? I think though, I am missing the point. If GDB decides, on its own, to go with GIT, what happens to the other projects? What are the outcomes? I just do not understand why this is a problem, and I wish somebody could just tell me the problems. Can they continue on CVS without harm? Could we persuade them about GIT too? Is it a problem with long CVS history? What are the problems here? I hack on GDB, and I really don't hack on much else. This is not to diminish other projects, I just don't hack on them. While other modules represented by other projects are important, I am trying to understand the reason why this is a blocker? Building GDB requires a lot of dependencies outside of what is provided in the repository. > ChangeLogs are very useful whatever the version control system; it's > routine to import snapshots from one system into another and the > ChangeLogs are readily available to see what source version you actually > have there. ChangeLogs are convenient to grep and much less I/O intensive > than git operations are (especially when your checkout is on NFS). I nearly decided to delete that line from the email as I did not want to dilute the arguments. I wrote the ChangeLog parser for Eclipse as I found ChangeLogs tiresome to write when history basically replaced it. I must admit, even when I hack on emacs, it is still a pain. I'll continue to do it, if people find it useful. However, git log is very, highly configurable. The options are very broad. And, as you can generate a git log from a local repository, the NFS thing should not be too difficult to overcome? Cheers, Phil