[RFC] ALFS version control system
bookreader at gmx.com
Thu Apr 15 01:21:17 PDT 2004
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 22:23, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Let me give a simple example of where BitKeeper would be helpful in our
> maintenance tasks... I am currently working on at least three different
> areas in nALFS: logging, handler parsing/display, and various efficiency
> improvements. As it stands today, I can only do those changes in a
> single tree, or else the only way I can merge them together is to push
> them up to the master CVS tree, even if the changes are not ready for
> public consumption yet (this is why CVS HEAD is currently broken).
> However, with BitKeeper I can do this:
> bk clone bk://bk.linuxfromscratch.org/ALFS/nALFS nALFS-logging
> bk clone bk://bk.linuxfromscratch.org/ALFS/nALFS nALFS-handlers
> bk clone bk://bk.linuxfromscratch.org/ALFS/nALFS nALFS-misc
> This gives me three trees I can work in, any of which can push changes
> up to the master tree on belgarath, but more importantly,
With cvs you could use 3 different (local) users and checkout the repository
in their home-directory. Or check it out once and copy it to the others.
The benefit of cvs is, that you work without locks, so you can clone your
local copy as often you like (you have to copy the CVS-subdirs as well).
You only have to care about "dist[clean]" before testing and you can commit
the changes from each copy as well.
> I can _clone_ these trees and push changes between them locally for testing
> before I send them up to the master tree. I can also pull changes from
> anyone else's clone of the nALFS tree (if, for example, Jamie has some
> changes he'd like me to play with) into any of my trees without them having
> to be diff/patched or merged into the master tree.
That sounds very great. I don't know BitKeeper at all, but I think, this would
only be true, if you did not change the same file in both clones.
Automated merging is a high sophisticated issue and I'm convinced, that it
can't work for big changes without an editors-changing-history and so forcing
you to use an IDE or somewhat similar (like eclipse).
> There are also benefits to using BitKeeper to maintain local copies of
> the LFS profiles, so that you can easily keep local changes and be able
> to pull down updates from the master tree as well. This is also possible
> with CVS, but with BitKeeper you could pull changes from someone else's
> copy of the profile as well and merge them into your tree with only one
> or two commands.
- Does BitKeeper use additional information outside of the sources?
- Does the merging of changes work, if you both changed the same files and how
is the result?
If the merging of local clones only works for changes in different files, then
I see no benefit over svn or cvs.
More information about the alfs-discuss