incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Source tree refactoring - TESTERS NEEDED
Date Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:32:59 GMT
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Paul Davis
<paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 4, 2010, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> Heya,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just finished getting the refactoring of the source tree to be
>>>>> more compliant with OTP source code layout. This is a pretty big move
>>>>> so I'd like at least a couple other people to test this. If you have
a
>>>>> platform that is not OS X or Ubuntu, consider this an extra special
>>>>> request so that we have confidence that I haven't broken one of the
>>>>> uncommon platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> The repo for the scripts and patches are at [1]. You should be able to
>>>>> get a fully refactored couch with:
>>>>>
>>>>>     $ git clone git://github.com/davisp/couchdb-srcmv.git
>>>>>     $ cd couchdb-srcmv
>>>>>     $ ./srcmv.py
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you have that, there's a couchdb.git subdirectory that is a
>>>>> checkout of the entire source tree. Once there, you can build and test
>>>>> couchdb as per normal. Also, I would appreciate anyone that goes the
>>>>> extra effort and runs the install into a tmp location and runs the
>>>>> Futon tests on the installed version to make sure everything still
>>>>> passes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally I'd like to get this into trunk fairly shortly so that it has
>>>>> as long as possible to sit in trunk before we cut 1.2.x. Let me know
>>>>> if there are any comments or complaints on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Davis
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/davisp/couchdb-srcmv
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After thinking about it, I don't see the point of having a script to
>>>> maintain patches, + patches coming with. It make review hard compared
>>>> to having a branch dedicated to this refactoring. Also it stops
>>>> somehow any external work of yours hard (eg. can't go further without
>>>> waiting your updates). Can't we just open a branch on svn and start to
>>>> work on it. Which would also allow us to wait for fdmanana merge of
>>>> new replicator
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are free to attempt that. I on the other hand want no part of
>>> having to deal with rebasing that set of patches using SVN's merge. On
>>> the other hand, if we did this as a git repository we'd lose the
>>> history for the entire source tree which would be even worse.
>>>
>>>> Related notes from my experiences and reads of the night:
>>>>
>>>> There are other needed changes imo:
>>>>
>>>> -  removing call go http layer in core ( for example in attachments),
>>>
>>> These patches don't fix everything. I very explicitly wanted to
>>> minimize the scope of these patches to solely moving files around and
>>> then fixing anything that broke. After these land in trunk there's
>>> still going to be a lot of work left on fixing other aspects of the
>>> code.
>>>
>>>> - having a CouchDB app that reconciliate. core (b-tree, changes, db
>>>> api) and other members. Such things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by reconciling the various apps. As I
>>> mention above, there's a lot to do. By no means am I suggesting this
>>> patch is comprehensive. Just enough to get over the large hurdle of
>>> refactoring the pathnames for files in the source tree.
>>>
>>>> I would be happy to work and the work in srcmv is already 70-80% of
>>>> what we ant. So is there any possibility to have a branch?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am very scared of SVN's merging. There are nightmares involved. I
>>> can barely manage to backport patches from trunk. I'm so anti-SVN I'm
>>> working with infra to try and start us using Git. SVN is the devil.
>>>
>>> That said, if you think you'd be all right handling such a large
>>> branch and the merge back to trunk after the replicator lands then by
>>> all means feel free to start one. I just chose not to.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Paul Davis
>>>
>>
>> Well at one point we should merge, whatever is the solution. Do we
>> really want final tests are done in trunk ?
>>
>
> How do you mean final tests?
>

For such a big changes, I can't imagine we do it directly in trunk. In
my opinion it should live in a branch while we improve it?

Also related question, if we split couch into modules, how  is it
handle as an apache project?

- benoît

Mime
View raw message