[os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo

[Stephen Ball]

As Andrew said, the idea to branch piccolo and lock-step with SVN was
one of the early suggestions. I absolutely think it is the right way to
go if we want to try to keep the repositories in-step short-term.

 

I will note that there can still be conflicts with this if we use a
multi-master bi-directional copy (someone updates a Piccolo file and
someone else updates the same file in SVN on the same day); so we do
have to have a way of dealing with that. 

 

Steve

 

From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Alex Hanshaw
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 12:43 AM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true
opensourcecommunity
Cc: David Reed; Robert Kibble
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] svn and piccolo

 

Piccolo would keep track of what has or has not been integrated between
the piccolo-opensource branch and main.

There would be no need to track what has been moved between an svn
repository and it's equivalent piccolo branch because

They would always be kept in lock step. 

 

I'd still argue the case for a single issue tracking system and given
that Service Desk is not linked at all to piccolo

or BUGs retaining piccolo would not make life worse if a unified issue
tracking system were used and it was not

hooked into piccolo or BUGs. Of course some will still argue the need
for separate systems to differentiate the

service supplied to paying and community users. I refuse to accept that
any of our paying customers are paying

so that they can be the privileged ones that get to use Service Desk. If
we clearly describe the differences of 

paid and community support in actual terms of the support given the
issue tracking system should not affect

our customers decision to use paid vs community support.

 

We have web access to BUGs information on newbream. We could expose this
externally to have a single BUGs

repository. We could just let the community log issues as our paying
customers do. Paying customers do not log bugs

so do community users need to be able log bugs, or could they browse a
knowledge base in the same way as

paying customers? Perhaps restricted to content generated from community
issues?

 

No one has defined the difference between community support and paid
support. Until they do we shouldn't be making any

decisions about the implementation.

 

 Alex

 

________________________________

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

 

Hi Alex,

 

We talked about doing this early on, and I agree if we want to maintain
two systems, it is definitely the way to do it. Also, I think we're
going to need to do this in the short term regardless.

 

As time progresses, we'll be maintaining branches in piccolo and svn for
each release. This paradigm does accomplish many of the missing
capabilities such as public bug tracking, public code repository, etc.
However, it may be a bit more expensive in terms of complexity,
infrastructure, keeping track of what's been propped where, and training
than maintaining one system. There were a number of people who expressed
the opinion that we should not do this at the summit as they felt the
cost would be prohibitive.

 

It is still early in the analysis, but it looks like we have no silver
bullet to do per-platform patching for maintenance. What is your feeling
at this point regarding which is least painful... maintaining two
systems, or headrev patching while the codeline is in maintenance?

 

Andrew

 

________________________________

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 6:49 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/20080523/820eac83/attachment-0001.html