Squeak, source control, subversion, versioning, monticello, all that
Simon.Kirk at pinesoft.co.uk
Fri Jan 27 16:23:49 UTC 2006
Hi Squeakers. Bit of an internal monologue here about something that's
been concerning me about Squeak development for a while now: Source
control. Please excuse the verbosity.
Specifically, over time at my last two companies I've worked with others
on developing a development process using CVS (later Subversion) that
allowed development to happen on a fair-sized codebase, across a team of
up to about 30 or 40 developers. Nothing particularly special, it uses
the idea of "branching a lot" as opposed to "branching a little", but it
allows the tight integration of a bug tracking tool with ones source
control, and potentially (although the reality is often less idealistic,
obviously) keeps fixes for bugs nicely segregated from the rest of the
code until they're merged. Note that this has always been on file-based
languages (Java in this case). But with a major smalltalk-related
caveat, which I'll get on to shortly.
It's how I'd like to be able to work now with Squeak, but obviously
things are different in image-based-development-land.
Just to elaborate a little on the process: There's a "main branch" of
development, commonly referred to (in my experience: Note that my
terminology may differ a lot to what people are used to, so please bear
with me :) as the HEAD with cvs/svn. The state of this branch is
arbitrary, really - although generally for me it was always the latest
main development/unstable/latest&greatest version of the product the
source-controlled codebase represented.
We then also used the branch-per-product method: In an ideal world a new
version of the product would be released to the world against a known
cvs/svn tag. Further maintenence against that version would then be
performed in a branch made from that tag, and would henceforth live
seperately from the HEAD. This process could continue as futher
maintenence releases were made from *that* branch, etc etc. One could
end up with version numbers like, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 188.8.131.52, say.
You get the picture I'm sure (I hope!).
We went a bit further (people may disagree here), and pushed branching
to the extreme: We branched for each and every defect change, naming
that branch against the bug number from our bug control software. Yes,
it took a lot of training to get the developers used to and happy with
this process, but once we did it became much, much easier to track
changes related to certain bugs, merge those changes into other branches
(ie back/forward porting bugs fixes between versions), review the
changes for a bug atomically, etc. We were pretty happy with it.
Of course one might point out that this model pretty much negated one of
the nicest parts of cvs/svn: that it allows developers to concurrently
work on the same files at once, and on face value you'd be right.
However, often we were working in a "large bug branch" that was really a
large branch related to a large new development, with at least two
developers (both assigned to the same bug) working on the same branch at
once, so here the concurrent modification came into play.
Now for the caveat: The model was based upon the original development
environment that my previous company were using before we switched to
Eclipse, VAJ (Visual Age forJava), in other words loosely based upon
development using ENVY - therefore loosely based on a reaonable
Smalltalk development practice.
Now I find myself at the point of trying to justify Squeak for
development here at my current job. I've got a lot of backing from
"upstairs", but I want to know that if we use Squeak we can have the
same level of granular control over source modification and control that
I've had with Java in the past. To my current understanding Monticello
just doesn't cut it - in fact (harsh as it may sound), the merging/diff
tools in Squeak generally seem inferior to svn or even VAJ/ENVY. I seem
to recall a post to this list that I read once from Avi saying that
Monticello was more of a version delivery system than a source version
control system - in other words that it was more useful as a way to
deliver the upgrade of a version of a complete package at once, rather
than people "checking code in an out" all the time as is more the case
with cvs/svn. Is this right?
Similarly, there was a system that Avi wrote a while back (I think this
was pre-MC) called DVS. However the archive on squeak dev isn't clear on
exactly what it was. From what I read it seemed much more a "snapshot
all of the image and shove it straight into whatever scm we're pointing
at" system, rather than dealing with individual files. I may however be
doing it an enormous injustice here.
Another thing that was recently mentioned was some work around MC2, but
I don't know if that will support the multi-developer process I
described above either, because of the general problem I've had so far:
Try as I might I cannot find enough information on how to manage a
smalltalk development within a multi-developer environment. Sure, I can
see how MC works on a high level. But for sharing code it seems like it
just won't work in the way I envisage it.
Therefore I find myself thinking that either I don't understand
MC/MC2/Envy and even Squeak development properly yet (highly likely as
I've only been using Squeak since last July, and even then not
exclusively by any means), or that the current systems out there don't
support what I want at all, or that the development process I've
described above is flawed.
So having gone through all that preamble (and that hopefully whatever
poor souls have made it this far now have a handle on the way I used to
work) I can ask the simpler question: Using Squeak how would one go
about developing a system in a safe, recordable and easy manner in a
multi-developer environment, while maintaining linkage with a
bug-tracking system such as bugzilla, in a way that is non-obtrusive* to
Cheers for reading, I hope it makes sense.
* Here I'm talking about the auditing of changes against bug fixes: For
instance with subversion I have a number of tools available: Fisheye
from cenqua allows me to track who's checking what in where via RSS, and
scmbug glues svn and bugzilla together such that comments of the form
"bug 45: Some changes for this bug" will automatically put a comment
into bugzilla against that bug: Getting developers to responsibily and
happily use bug tracking software is quite a challenge!
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com
More information about the Squeak-dev