[Vm-dev] a Cog branch

Javier Pimás elpochodelagente at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 14:58:20 UTC 2010


     I think there's a misconception here. The fact that DVCS makes you easy
to branch doesn't mean that there will be a lot of disconnected incompatible
forks thrown out there.

     Branches in DVCS are not the same as branches in SVN, they are not used
the same way. i.e. in GIT, you create a branch each time you start working
in a new feature, no matter if it is big or small. That helps you to keep
your changes isolated from the mainline. Then, you commit your changes into
your branch. After some commits, when the code is ready, you merge them to
the mainline again.

     The are many things that are really really really nice thing about
DVCS. One of them is that it helps A LOT in merging the changes back.
Besides, you can have your changes in a really tidy way, because you go on
commiting all the time, even if your code is not ready to be merged to the
mainline, you do it locally. When the code is ready, the DVCS will make it
very easy to merge it back to the mainline and to do it without loosing the
history of commits. At last, with infraestructure like github (or others)
you can make your own branch public so that other people can collaborate
with you, and the result is that your branches end up getting incorporated
into the mainline quicker and are never lost.

Of course, I support the idea of DVCS, be it any of them (I think they are
all compatible anyway, because they share their distributed nature).

Regards,
            Javier.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:26 AM, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:14 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:18:19AM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> >
>> > So I'm strongly in favor of switching to a DCVS. I personally only ever
>> > used git, but since hg supposedly has better x-platform support that
>> > would be fine too (the Windows devs should speak up). Wouldn't be
>> > opposed to bzr either.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but I have to say that
>> right now would be a poor time to consider major changes to the
>> infrastructure unless there is a *truly* compelling reason to
>> do so.
>
>
>
> I think the opposite :)  It's a wonderful opportunity to learn. When I
> started working on the Linux kernel, I've learned a lot because all patches
> go through the Linux Kernel Mailing List (thanks to Git), discussed,
> reviewed, integrated in experimental branches and finally in official one.
>
> A real force of Git infrastructure is to bring visibility. Cog is here,
> let's learn, play and contribute easily.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>> The reason is managing change overall - the Cog development
>> represents a huge opportunity, but it also implies a lot of new
>> things to understand and integrate, and new work to be done by
>> folks who will need to understand the changes. Performing a
>> simultanious migration to new version control and build processes
>> would likely lead to delays and disruption in the more important
>> objective of making progress on the VM.
>>
>> I suggest that we focus on successful integration of Cog this year,
>> and consider moving to some new version control infrastructure at
>> a time when we are sailing on calmer waters.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Javier Pimás
Ciudad de Buenos Aires
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20100625/bcbd089a/attachment.htm


More information about the Vm-dev mailing list