[Controversial] Developper only CVS sandbox
Hi all, As Dimi is not the only one that can start flames on wine-devel, let's start a new one :-) When I see the work that is starting to go on on D3D8 or even on my old D3D code, I think that it would be nice if there was some CVS 'sandbox' where Wine developper could interact on shared code without going the Alexandre round-trip. This would be much less painful than sending patches back and forth between developpers. This sandbox would be closed (ie it would be a developper only Wine tree) to NOT start another Wine fork and all development on this sandbox would be merged back in Wine when they are ready (and then would still go the Alexandre way of course). Now, what does the Wine community think about this ? If people agree, what would be the best way to handle this ? Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:14:26PM +0200, Lionel Ulmer wrote:
This sandbox would be closed (ie it would be a developper only Wine tree) to NOT start another Wine fork and all development on this sandbox would be merged back in Wine when they are ready (and then would still go the Alexandre way of course).
IMHO it should be open and be jsut another branch of winehq. Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.
IMHO it should be open and be jsut another branch of winehq.
That would be the best... But well, I never heard much good about CVS's prowess in handling branching (with all the mess like handling properly conflicts, precise branch management, ...). Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/
Am Mit, 2002-09-25 um 23.35 schrieb Lionel Ulmer:
That would be the best... But well, I never heard much good about CVS's prowess in handling branching (with all the mess like handling properly conflicts, precise branch management, ...).
I have never understood why people keep saying CVS can't do this. After all, CVS was made for exactly that. It is easy to setup branches and sub-branches, merge, etc., with CVS. Every VC system is in trouble when merging branches that have diverged for a long time and expose a lot of conflicts, until someone comes up with an AI that understands what the different developers actually meant. In this respect, CVS is exactly as smart as diff3. Some systems may be better than CVS at this, admitted. But as long as there are only a few branches and people keep their stuff more or less in sync with main, I think it'd be fine - especially for people working on relatively separate subtrees like D3D8. Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck(a)Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy
I don't get it either. Synch the current WINE CVS on sourceforge with the winehq one. Create a branch on the SF CVS. Every so often, create a hook that will commit changes to the main WINEHQ cvs to the main SF CVS (or create an automatic hook reading from wine-cvs). Every so often, someone needs to merge the changes in the main tree to the branch (happens all the time when you do local development, when you do "cvs up"). As for merging - I have had only minor experience with ClearCase, but I did perform major merges in CVS. In my experience, it is no more diffuclt than the theoretical problem of "how the !#($*!% should the two chages be merged". I have not seen anything that suggests to me that ClearCase is any better at this. It is better at actually creating the branches, etc. What I suggest: Someone (we'll call him "WINE SF project manager") needs to make sure that the main SF CVS is up to date. Someone else (we'll call him "D3D project manager", or whatever the branch is all about) needs to maintain that branch, perform periodic merges, etc. This same someone also needs to occasionally submit the branch's state to the winehq CVS. Shachar Martin Wilck wrote:
Am Mit, 2002-09-25 um 23.35 schrieb Lionel Ulmer:
That would be the best... But well, I never heard much good about CVS's prowess in handling branching (with all the mess like handling properly conflicts, precise branch management, ...).
I have never understood why people keep saying CVS can't do this. After all, CVS was made for exactly that. It is easy to setup branches and sub-branches, merge, etc., with CVS.
Every VC system is in trouble when merging branches that have diverged for a long time and expose a lot of conflicts, until someone comes up with an AI that understands what the different developers actually meant. In this respect, CVS is exactly as smart as diff3.
Some systems may be better than CVS at this, admitted. But as long as there are only a few branches and people keep their stuff more or less in sync with main, I think it'd be fine - especially for people working on relatively separate subtrees like D3D8.
Martin
Some systems may be better than CVS at this, admitted. But as long as there are only a few branches and people keep their stuff more or less in sync with main, I think it'd be fine - especially for people working on relatively separate subtrees like D3D8. just to react on Alexandre flame war proposal. what about bitkeeper ? A+
participants (5)
-
Eric POUECH -
Joerg Mayer -
Lionel Ulmer -
Martin Wilck -
Shachar Shemesh