[os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo

[Andrew Ross]

Hi Alex, Bruce, All
 
I haven't had time to try it yet, but I'm fairly certain we can mirror
the repository to all offices. You'd pull code or update from a
read-only mirror that's available on the local (gigabit) network. This
should take a deterministic amount of time and greatly reduce
inter-office (VPN?) code pull traffic.
 
The read-only mirror repositories would sync when someone commits code
to the master.
 
Updates will be committed against the master repository. Since we're
mostly only pushing tiny diffs, even going over a slow network for this
should still be zippy.
 
Andrew
 
p.s. Following up on the disk space & svn discussion. The repository
today consumes only 266MB of disk space, even with the branches people
have created. Borrowing a line from Steve, disk space is indeed cheap.
Having issues with disk space because people are using the system *a
lot* is a good problem to have.
 

________________________________

From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Alex Hanshaw
Sent: May 22, 2008 10:23 AM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true
opensourcecommunity
Cc: David Reed; Robert Kibble
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo



Hi Bruce

 

 Piccolo is throttled on the network, svn is not.

 Svn took over an hour to come down in the uk, vs 5 minutes for Andrew.

 

 There may be a problem in setting up the OpenRoad community repository
given the code is shares from

different versions of Ingres. Some discussion with Andrew may be
required.

 

 Alex

 

________________________________

From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce A. Lunsford
Sent: 22 May 2008 15:17
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true
opensourcecommunity
Cc: David Reed; Robert Kibble
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo

 

Sounds good to me, particularly if the syncing of piccolo-opensrc and
svn is automated, which it seems like it could be.  One other advantage
is that we don't lose the history in piccolo by a 1-time switchover to
svn (or alternatively have to come up with a way to get the history
migrated to svn).  One downside is that I was really enjoying the
under-10-minute refresh of an entire source build area using svn as
opposed to 8 hours or so with piccolo (which is why "p need" will
continue to be the favored approach with piccolo versus blowing away a
build area and starting from scratch).

 

>From the perspective of EDBC, this approach also helps because the EDBC
server code is now at the point of being put into piccolo.  This was
never possible before because of the lack of a piccolo mainframe client,
which was recently completed.  Moving to another CM system would have
meant porting another CM client to the mainframe (or sticking with
piccolo).


Regards,

 

Bruce

 

________________________________

From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Alex Hanshaw
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:49 AM
To: opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
Cc: David Reed; Robert Kibble
Subject: [os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo

 

Hi all

 

 Robert Kibble today suggested a rather neat solution to our svn and
piccolo dilemma.

 

 The idea is that we create a piccolo branch off of main that is
identical and kept in tight lock step with

the svn repository.

 

 Every submission in the svn repository could then be replicated in the
piccolo-opensrc branch with a file

copy of the affected files. No need to merge difs.

 Every change in the svn repository could then be easily integrated into
main through the use of an ineed against

the piccolo-opensrc branch.

 Any change in main that we wished to push through into the svn
repository could be done by locking the affected

files in the svn repository at head rev, crossing the change from main
into the piccolo-opensrc branch (identical

at head rev to svn) and then whole file copy the piccolo-opensrc files
to the svn repository for submission.

 

 By forcing a tight lockstep of the svn repository and the
piccolo-opensrc branch replicating the changes between

the two repositories would be as simple as copying files.

 

 If we adopt this approach:

1)       We have zero disruption to our paying customers.

2)       We can provide a community codeline using svn.

3)       We can easily pull changes between the community repository and
our piccolo repository.

4)       No need to rewrite existing scripts and procedures built on and
around piccolo.

5)       Significantly reduced svn training costs.

6)       Ingres staff wanting to contribute to the community edition can
working in svn or piccolo (removes the barrier of not knowing svn).

 

 Let me know what you think.

 

 Regards

 

 Alex

 

 

  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ingres.com/pipermail/opensource-infrastructure/attachments/20080522/c984171f/attachment-0001.html