From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Moving to bzr? Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:03:31 -0500 Message-ID: References: <871vviif6s.fsf@xemacs.org> <87mye6xnsr.fsf@xemacs.org> <87y6xpvyz6.fsf@xemacs.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1231279433 31565 80.91.229.12 (6 Jan 2009 22:03:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , "Stephen J. Turnbull" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 06 23:05:04 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LKK2m-0000J6-BZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:05:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56111 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LKK1W-0001Sj-Ti for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:03:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LKK1T-0001Se-80 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:03:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LKK1Q-0001SS-Rt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:03:37 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38126 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LKK1Q-0001SP-ME for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:03:36 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:46962) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LKK1O-0007XH-FP; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:03:34 -0500 Original-Received: from alfajor.home (vpn-132-204-232-85.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.85]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n06M4BMG011177; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:04:11 -0500 Original-Received: by alfajor.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 59EB81C83E; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:03:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:38:31 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3183=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:107669 Archived-At: >> The decision to move to bzr was made, but the decision when to move >> was not. > Some kind of timeline, even if we're forced to move it back > eventually, would be nice. I think I wrote this a few weeks ago, but here it goes again: I've been using Bzr for a while now for my main development branch (from which I then extract patches which I apply to the CVS tree and then commit). Speed isn't impressive, but in my situation (5MB/s DSL, cpu speed between 1.2 and 2.4 GHz, RAM between 768MB and 4GB), it's proved to be comparable to CVS. The initial checkout may take a longer time, but I did it once many months ago and have never had to do it again since, so it doesn't seem important. On the reliability side, I've been using the development branch of Bzr (upgraded on a non-regular basis), and have not encountered a single problem (other than the fact that it tends to crash the NFS client if your Bzr branch is on an NFSv4 partition using Kerberos: supposedly the Bzr code that triggered this bug has been changed so maybe the problem is gone, and hopefully the underlying NFSv4 bug has also been fixed or will be fixed soon, tho from what I hear, the state of NFSv4+Kerberos in the Linux kernel is not very inspiring). >From that point of view, I think we can switch any time now. The main remaining problem is to come up with a good Bzr repository: the one I've been using (maintained by Jason Earl) has some missing tags, and lacks merge history as well as file-move information. Apparently the file-move info will be difficult to recover, so I think we will have to live without it (note that we live without it in CVS, but some of that info is available (and used) in the Arch repository). The missing tags should be easy to recover. And the merge history is available in the Git repository, so there's hope to get it into a Bzr repository as well. I.e. we're just waiting for a good Bzr repository with complete tag data, and with as much merge history as we can get, Stefan