Bazaar to Git status

Bazaar to Git status

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 401 bytes --]

Haven't noticed any messages in a while on the project to move Emacs
development from bzr to git.  Not since January really.  Did I miss
something that has shelved the project?  Or maybe it is done and it is the
best kept secret since esr fired his first shot at Bazaar many months ago.
Or that daunting list of final things to do has proven even more stubborn
than even rms himself can be. :-)

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 471 bytes --]

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Paul Michael Reilly writes:

> Haven't noticed any messages in a while on the project to move Emacs
> development from bzr to git.  Not since January really.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-07/msg00496.html

Before winter, hopefully.

Greetings, Jan

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl  

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[David Kastrup]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:

> Paul Michael Reilly writes:
>
>> Haven't noticed any messages in a while on the project to move Emacs
>> development from bzr to git.  Not since January really.
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-07/msg00496.html
>
> Before winter, hopefully.

Huh.  Git 2.1.0 is coming out soon and will have the git-blame
performance patches tailored to make running it on src/xdisp.c less
painful.  No idea when 2.2 will come out ("stable" release), or whether
the performance stuff will get backported to 2.0 at some point of time.

I'd have expected to have the Bazaar migration happen before that.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Stefan Monnier]

> Haven't noticed any messages in a while on the project to move Emacs
> development from bzr to git.  Not since January really.  Did I miss
> something that has shelved the project?  Or maybe it is done and it is the
> best kept secret since esr fired his first shot at Bazaar many months ago.
> Or that daunting list of final things to do has proven even more stubborn
> than even rms himself can be. :-)

Reminds me that, additionally to the "not before the 24.4 release",
we're also still waiting for Git support of vc-find-conflicted-file.


        Stefan

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Stefan Monnier writes:

> Reminds me that, additionally to the "not before the 24.4 release",
> we're also still waiting for Git support of vc-find-conflicted-file.

"waiting", is that an effective strategy?

Greetings, Jan

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar®  http://AvatarAcademy.nl  

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Eric S. Raymond]

Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com>:
> Haven't noticed any messages in a while on the project to move Emacs
> development from bzr to git.  Not since January really.  Did I miss
> something that has shelved the project?  Or maybe it is done and it is the
> best kept secret since esr fired his first shot at Bazaar many months ago.
> Or that daunting list of final things to do has proven even more stubborn
> than even rms himself can be. :-)
> 
> -pmr

You haven't heard much about it because the hard work is all done. I
have the scripts ready to go and need only about eight hours' notice
before pushing the button.

That is, assuming everyone has played nice and not embedded more bzr
revision numbers in ChangeLogs or revision comments - if someone
slipped on that then I will need to do another revision of the
conversion recipe and another conversion run (they take about eight
hours - it's a big repository).

You can pull a copy of the transition recipe and associated scripts from here:

git://gitorious.org/emacs-transition/emacs-transition.git

I've documented the whole process; you can do a trial conversion yourself
if you care to try.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Paul Michael Reilly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2015 bytes --]

Eric, are you aware of Stefan's wait state on Git support of
vc-find-conflicted-file and is this something you are inclined to punt on?

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:

> Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com>:
> > Haven't noticed any messages in a while on the project to move Emacs
> > development from bzr to git.  Not since January really.  Did I miss
> > something that has shelved the project?  Or maybe it is done and it is
> the
> > best kept secret since esr fired his first shot at Bazaar many months
> ago.
> > Or that daunting list of final things to do has proven even more stubborn
> > than even rms himself can be. :-)
> >
> > -pmr
>
> You haven't heard much about it because the hard work is all done. I
> have the scripts ready to go and need only about eight hours' notice
> before pushing the button.
>
> That is, assuming everyone has played nice and not embedded more bzr
> revision numbers in ChangeLogs or revision comments - if someone
> slipped on that then I will need to do another revision of the
> conversion recipe and another conversion run (they take about eight
> hours - it's a big repository).
>
> You can pull a copy of the transition recipe and associated scripts from
> here:
>
> git://gitorious.org/emacs-transition/emacs-transition.git
>
> I've documented the whole process; you can do a trial conversion yourself
> if you care to try.
>

What I would like to do is grab hold of workflow documentation, assuming it
exists, on how to use the converted git repo to build from current
development sources and test it out on a few Mac systems.  Sounds like four
pieces need to come together: 1) 24.4 gets released, 2)
vc-find-conflicted-file has Stefan satisfied, 3) workflow documentation is
updated and 4) you have pushed the button after being convinced it is time.
 1) is in progress, 2) and 3) are in an unknown state, and 4) appears to be
ready.  It would be good to get more insight into plans, if any, to address
2) and 3).

-pmr

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2659 bytes --]

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Glenn Morris]

"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:

> You haven't heard much about it because the hard work is all done. I
> have the scripts ready to go and need only about eight hours' notice
> before pushing the button.

I'm pretty sure there was a list of other things that needed to be done,
beside "replace old revision references". I hope someone was keeping a
list of the various items that were requested, so that we don't have to
go through it all over again.

Eg what will replace bzr --fixes, bzrmerge.el, vc-git.el improvements,
etc, etc.

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Eric S. Raymond]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>:
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> 
> > You haven't heard much about it because the hard work is all done. I
> > have the scripts ready to go and need only about eight hours' notice
> > before pushing the button.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there was a list of other things that needed to be done,
> beside "replace old revision references". I hope someone was keeping a
> list of the various items that were requested, so that we don't have to
> go through it all over again.
> 
> Eg what will replace bzr --fixes, bzrmerge.el, vc-git.el improvements,
> etc, etc.

I've been maintaining that list. It's the file transition.txt in the 
conversion-machinery repo.

To the best of my knowledge, the only major un-done task for before the 
conversion is this one:

* Better cross-VCS integration of smerge in vc.el.  Here are Stefan's
  requirements:

 - Improve vc-git.el so that it can automatically enable smerge-mode when
   opening a conflicted file and (probably conditional on a config var)
   mark the file as "not conflicted any more" when saving with no
   remaining diff3 markers.
   This currently works in vc-bzr.el (and vc-svn.el as well, IIRC).

 - Improve vc-git.el with vc-git-conflicted-files so that
   vc-find-conflicted-files works for Git as well.

  See Rüdiger Sonderfeld's patch proposal:
  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg01038.html

What really needs to happen here, I think, is for the smerge support 
to be moved into the core vc code rather than being a set of disjoint
per-VC kluges.

I reckon this to be about a day and a half of work.  I'll schedule 
it when we start seriously discussing a cutover date.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Glenn Morris]

"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:

> I reckon this to be about a day and a half of work.  I'll schedule 
> it when we start seriously discussing a cutover date.

Sounds backwards to me. I'd expect the date to be dependent on these
issues having being fixed first.

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Eric S. Raymond]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>:
> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> 
> > I reckon this to be about a day and a half of work.  I'll schedule 
> > it when we start seriously discussing a cutover date.
> 
> Sounds backwards to me. I'd expect the date to be dependent on these
> issues having being fixed first.

You don't seriously think we're going to schedule less than a month
in asdvance, do you?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[David Kastrup]

"Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> writes:

> Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>:
>> "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
>> 
>> > I reckon this to be about a day and a half of work.  I'll schedule 
>> > it when we start seriously discussing a cutover date.
>> 
>> Sounds backwards to me. I'd expect the date to be dependent on these
>> issues having being fixed first.
>
> You don't seriously think we're going to schedule less than a month
> in asdvance, do you?

The feature in question concern Git work in general as far as I can see,
and there is no technical point in delaying it until Emacs itself moves
to Git.

"I'll not be motivated to do that before the move is actually about to
happen" (which I suspect to be the actual situation) is not a "rational"
consideration.  At any rate: an earlier implementation means more
testing before the move.  Depending on what other problems crop up while
moving, having this one out of one's hair early might be prudent.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Glenn Morris]

"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:

>> Sounds backwards to me. I'd expect the date to be dependent on these
>> issues having being fixed first.
>
> You don't seriously think we're going to schedule less than a month
> in asdvance, do you?

If it were up to me (it's not), the date would be "one week after all
issues have been dealt with". I don't see what the point of waiting
another month would be. We've known for 6+ months that this is going to
happen. It's just another VCS.

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:

 > "I'll not be motivated to do that before the move is actually about
 > to happen" (which I suspect to be the actual situation) is not a
 > "rational" consideration.

I'm pretty sure it's the situation, and it's as rational as 1/2 is.
Cf. Nancy Stokey, /The Economics of Inaction/.  Warning: to actually
read that book requires stochastic calculus, but the relevant point
here is that the title is not a joke -- it's a real monograph on the
subject.

Kudos to Eric for putting up with this kind of crap; I can't.

BTW, if you want more time for testing, it may be negotiable.  Why not
just ask for it?

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Stefan Monnier]

> If it were up to me (it's not), the date would be "one week after all
> issues have been dealt with".

Sounds about right.


        Stefan

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>  > "I'll not be motivated to do that before the move is actually about
>  > to happen" (which I suspect to be the actual situation) is not a
>  > "rational" consideration.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's the situation, and it's as rational as 1/2 is.

I was already using quote marks but apparently a more discernible
reference would have been "highly illogical".

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Bazaar to Git status

[Eric S. Raymond]

Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com>:
> Eric, are you aware of Stefan's wait state on Git support of
> vc-find-conflicted-file and is this something you are inclined to punt on?

I've merged a patch that should work.  It isn't currently practical for me 
to test it, but troubleshooting should be easy once we have a live use case.

> What I would like to do is grab hold of workflow documentation, assuming it
> exists, on how to use the converted git repo to build from current
> development sources and test it out on a few Mac systems.

Go right ahead.


>                                                          Sounds like four
> pieces need to come together: 1) 24.4 gets released, 2)
> vc-find-conflicted-file has Stefan satisfied, 3) workflow documentation is
> updated and 4) you have pushed the button after being convinced it is time.
>  1) is in progress, 2) and 3) are in an unknown state, and 4) appears to be
> ready.  It would be good to get more insight into plans, if any, to address
> 2) and 3).

2) As I said above, the code is integrated and ready for testing.  It may
just work; if not, troubleshooting should be easy once the giot repo is live.

3) is done.  Months ago now.

I do not know of any blockers for the cutover.  I have a not4 that says

* Work with hydra-users mailing list to update hydra build config.

but I don't recall what hydra is.  There are no other work items that
cannot obviously wait until post-transition.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>