[ogb-discuss] Project proposal - Integration

[Alan Coopersmith]

Richard Lowe wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at Sun.COM> writes:
>> The problem with the gate conversions is not the technology being moved to -
>> we could have gone live with Mercurial long ago if it was only the process
>> of setting up repositories that had to be done - it's the integration with
>> the rest of the process and tools that is taking time.
> 
> That's largely true, but not entirely.  I don't see any point in
> elaborating in this discussion, however.

Of course you know far more about the status than I - I was just referring
to the obvious evidence of having a number of project gates running using
Mercurial, including one I work on, and can do commits to and pulls from
without issue, and then build it.     As the maintainer of the X consolidation
build tools, I also have some idea of what's going to be involved to make a
Mercurial gate the master gate, and it's pretty much the same as if we chose
Subversion instead - we still need to modify the build scripts to use whichever
to check out updated copies of the code, the scripts to generate code reviews
to use whichever to determine the differences, the scripts to report on what
changes went into a build to use whichever to get the change logs, and to
finally separate the open and closed source portions of our tree into different
repositories.    (Which is why I'm mostly concentrating first on getting as much
as possible of the closed source in the X gate replaced with open source, to
make that step simpler.)

Obviously, some things will be easier with one toolset or the other - I've
only used subversion a little bit, Mercurial only a little more than that -
and don't have enough experience to say for sure which would be better.

-- 
	-Alan Coopersmith-           alan.coopersmith at sun.com
	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering