[Vm-dev] VMMaker branching

[Igor Stasenko]

On 22 March 2011 22:30, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 20 March 2011 12:37, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 19.03.2011, at 19:48, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 19 March 2011 19:44, Matthew Fulmer <tapplek at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 01:36:04PM -0400, David T. Lewis wrote:
>> >>>> I have stayed away from committing anything directly to the oscog
>> >>>> branch out of concern that it may lead to confusion between the
>> >>>> two branches if my 'dtl' initials start showing up there. I do
>> >>>> have some changes that can be applied to oscog (mostly to get
>> >>>> rid of cosmetic differences between the two branches that clutter
>> >>>> up the Montecello browser). I've sent a few of these to Eliot but
>> >>>> I don't know if that is the preferred approach going forward.
>> >>>> Advice welcome, as I do want to put some more effort into reconciling
>> >>>> the code bases pretty soon.
>> >>>
>> >>> MC supports branching, but lacks a built in way to mark the
>> >>> branches as seperate. We have 3 branches of Cobalt currently,
>> >>> and we keep them seperate by keeping them in seperate
>> >>> repositories.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Well, i am actually used different naming for oscog branch
>> >> (VMMaker-<name>-oscog).
>> >> And MC lists it as a separate package.
>> >
>> > Because the MC UI treats everything up to the last hyphen as package name (it does not look inside for the actual package name). If you named it e.g. VMMaker-<name>_oscog then it would be listed as the same package.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but i don't want it to be same, so its not lost in a list of
>> Squeak (non-Cog) VMMaker packages.
>>
>
> If multiple people are going to be committing to the oscog branch,
> then I think that Matthew is pointing us in a good direction. Just
> to try it out, I made a local repository on my own hard drive, and
> copied all of the cog MCZs into it from SqueakSource. It is simple
> (though a bit tedious) to set up a repository like this on SqueakSource
> such that we would have two companion VMMaker repositories while
> working through the code merge. It does look to me like it this
> organization would make it easier to keep track of things, and I
> will be happy to set it up if you (Eliot and Igor especially) agree
> it is the right thing to do.
>
> So let me ask a couple of questions:
>
> - Eliot, are you happy to have other people commit MCZ updates for
> the oscog branch? In particular, is it OK if I do that?
>
> - Are you comfortable working with two repositories as opposed to
> keeping both branches in one repository as currently set up?
>
> If yes to both, then I will volunteer to set up the SqueakSource
> project to do this. After it is set up, we can turn on email commit
> notifications so that it will work exactly like the current VMMaker
> project. Assuming that we successfully accomplish the merge, we
> can move things back into one repository at a later date.
>

Dave, one of the problems with having distributed branches that
history is not so easily accessible
(to check delta between two packages if they are in different
repositories will be tedious task).
I personally don't feel a need to do that right now. We should really
look why committing VMMaker package
to SqS takes so much time.
To my impression there is something wrong with uploading mechanism,
because it should just transfer the file, save it on disk, close a
connection and only then start various processing
like send mails or computing diffs.

> Dave
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.