incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [Repo] SVN ETA? (was Re: Request for comments: Community Wiki Services web page.)
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:28:24 GMT
Thanks for the clarification.  That makes more sense.

My next questions are,

 1. Where are the OpenOffice.org Hg repositories to be found?

 2. Is anyone doing the scripted merge you speak of?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Mathias Bauer [mailto:Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:10
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Repo] SVN ETA? (was Re: Request for comments: Community Wiki Services web page.)

On 10.08.2011 19:13, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> I think we agree we want a complete Hg (or git) on Apache Extras, so
> we can preserve what we can and also so we can cherry pick anything
> we find that we need to draw over to the SVN repo, to repair problems
> on the SVN, etc.
> 
> Greg Stein set up one project (ooo) but nothing has been moved to it:
>  <http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/ooo/>
> 
> I'm unclear what the existence of all the Child Work Spaces does to
> this - I assume we only get one Hg repo per Apache Extra Project and
> I don't understand the relationship among the multiple repos used in
> OpenOffice.org. (I've never used Git or Hg, so that is a blind spot
> for me.)
> 
> [Nosing around OpenOffice.org I could find no source repositories,
> although release tarballs are stated to be available.  I probably
> don't know where to look.]
> 
> I'm all in favor of doing the least possible to create the Apache
> extra.  "While we're at it ... " tasks tend to add too many variables
> in case there are problems and don't have a history of great
> success.
> 
> Having a way to do further work at leisure is what I hope for.
> 
> (I see that LibreOffice has gotten down to one, but that doesn't help
> here and I'm not sure what that means in any case.)

I think that you are confusing things here. If you are talking about the
"one git" effort from LibreOffice: for historical or other reaons
LibreOffice always had more than one repository for their code base
(IIRC even more than five), while OOo always only had one until we
separated the l10n stuff. As having more than one repository is a major
PITA for developers if you need them all for even the smalles build,
they decided to go back to one repository.

But this is only for the "trunk" (main code line).

In OOo each cws had its own repository that was created by copying the
trunk repo before new code was added to this copy as change sets. Once
the work on the cws was finished, the new change sets were pulled into
the trunk repository ("code integration") and the cws repository was
discarded after some idle time.

These cws repositories are the huge number or repos we are talking about
in the AOOo context. Moving all these repositories to one place would
eat up several hundreds of GB or - in case hard links can be used - ~80
GB. But we can do better.

As each CWS repository started as a copy of the trunk repo, it is
identical with it for more than 99% of its size, the <1% difference
being a number of change sets that make up the value of the cws. Thus
pulling all change sets from all cws into one a copy of the trunk
repository will save a huge amount of disk space, even 100 cws won't
take much more space than the single trunk repo. Such repository should
fit into the 4 GB disk space we seem to have at apache-extras.

As we want to be able to work on each of the cws later, we must be able
to identify each "tip" change set of all cws in this repo. This can be
done by keeping each cws in a separate branch or by bookmarking its tip
change set. The latter is easier to achieve by scripting, the former
probably would make it easier to work with the cws later. IIRC ease of
scripting won.

Regards,
Mathias


Mime
View raw message