[Vm-dev] VMMaker branching

[David T. Lewis]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:30:58AM -0700, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>  
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> 
> At the moment I'm a little uncomfortable with this.  I think its still a few
> weeks too early.  VMMaker-oscog.N is my reviewed/approved line of Cog
> sources.  Once I'm using INRIA-Lille's Hudson server to do builds and have
> tests green etc I'll be happy either to allow  VMMaker-oscog.N to be used by
> everybody, or to see it die and folded into VMMaker-whoever.N.  Until then
> would you mind following Igor's convention, e.g. VMMaker-oscog-dtl.N?

Yes, that sounds fine, thanks.

> 
> 
> > - Are you comfortable working with two repositories as opposed to
> > keeping both branches in one repository as currently set up?
> >
> 
> Doesn't seem to me to make sense.  We've agreed that the right arc is to
> refactor Interpreter out from under ObjectMemory in which case we're clearly
> heading to merge to one VMMaker containing 4 or more VMs (context and stack
> interpreters, Cog and CogMT jits, with possibly/hopefully someone doing a
> StackMT).  Splitting the VMMaker repository seems to be going against this
> direction.  Nothing stops people form committing a VMMaker wherever they
> choose but in our main-line work I don't think we want to be using other
> than www.squeaksource.com/VMMaker.

Agreed, Igor had the same view.

Dave