Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-08 11:57:43
On 02/08/2012 07:30 AM, Steven Samuel Cole wrote:
> Hi all,
> First post here, so please bear with me.
> A lot has been said in the last year on the subject of a possible
> migration from svn to git. However, after reading pretty much every
> message on the issue on this list (sic!), I have the impression that
> some of the most important aspects did not get the consideration they
> require. I would therefore like to add my outside perspective.
Thanks for your comments.
> 1. an svn --> git migration does cause some major, but one-time
> disruption. However, svn right now causes minor, but continuous
> disruption on a daily basis - which often goes unnoticed.
> 2. git's distributed concept is nothing less than one generation ahead
> of centralized VCSs like svn. The benefits usually do not become
> apparent until git is actually used in practice.
> 3. at the moment, boost is significantly missing out on fresh enthusiasm
> that new contributors could bring into the project; svn and the policies
> it mandates are partly too blame for that.
> 4. svn trunk (i.e. boost library) maintainers are too limited by the svn
> concept in their decision which changes they merge at what point in time
> and may be pressured into rushing suboptimal decisions; this can make
> maintenance work painful and frustrating. git greatly alleviates that
> 5. IMO, it's not 'if', it is 'when'. The longer a migration is delayed,
> the longer boost development will be slowed down without even noticing.
> This is what happened here in the last couple of days:
Now let's play the same game with git.
> I needed a tool for a job in my current project and I couldn't find one,
> so I thought about what components I need to build my own. A little web
> research - Boost.Iostreams looks perfect for the purpose.
> You have all been through what comes next, be it with boost or with
> other open source software: Download the latest release, install the
> libraries, start reading the docs, run some sample code, etc.
> While reading, I spot a typo in an HTML doc, then another in an include
> file comment, a third one in another file... the fourth one at the
> latest makes me think - this is open source, I should sync the latest
> sources, fix all those typos as I come across them while reading and
> contribute them back to the project.
Nothing really changes here.
> A quick read on submitting bugs on boost.org, svn co yadi yadi, fix the
> typos locally. Of course I don't have write privileges to the repo, so
> the best I can do for now is create a patch and attach that to a bug
> report. Within minutes, someone takes care of the bug, comments and
> takes ownership. Excellent! Smithers, money fight!
Great! Now with something like github you create your own fork, push to
that and eventually create a pull request and wait until it gets applied
... as you described. The process didn't change. You just named the
> I go back to reading, find more typos. My patch has not been committed
> to the trunk yet, so my local changes are still sitting there on my
> local hard drive. If I do another svn diff > file_2.patch, the patch
> will also contain the changes I have already attached to the bug report.
> What are my options now ? Revert my changes, base the new ones on the
> head revision and send another patch ? Create a new patch file and
> manually remove the diffs of the old changes I already sent ? How will
> the upstream maintainer know which changes are based on what version ?
Simple. Update the bug you already filed with the patch containing all
fixes. What would be the options with git? Update the pull request?
Again, same thing, different name.
> Also, I notice a few other things that in my opinion could be done
> better to facilitate adoption of the iostreams library. I would be
> willing to do the work and I would in the perfect position as I am
> walking in the shoes of an adopter right now - but these are separate
> from the typo fixes and they are larger issues; considering I can't
> check my changes in, would I really want to have them sit on my local
> harddrive, waiting possibly for months for someone upstream to review
> and hopefully merge them ?
So with git you pushed them to your personal fork. Over time, your fork
and the upstream version eventually diverge. You have to maintain your
changes. Same thing when the changes lurk on your local svn working.
> A couple of hours later: I get an email from boost bugs/svn; the
> upstream maintainer has committed my changes. However, I actually
> receive not one, but two emails, because the upstream guy chose to split
> my patch into changes on documentation and changes on source code (which
> presumably required extra work on his part).
Frankly, I don't see how this would change with git.
> I do an svn up and now have to deal with conflicts between my local
> changes and the new commits: I make a note of my second set of changes
> and overwrite my local files with the new repo versions, then bring the
> second set back in.
Same again. How is this significantly different to what you'd do with git?
> Uff! That's a lot of work just to fix some typos! And these are just
> cosmetic issues in discrete chunks that do not require any testing;
> contributing changes to source code would take even more effort and more
> caution - build and test on several platforms, peer review, etc.
Right, all that wouldn't change with having git as the tool of choice.
> Also, the upstream maintainer jumped on the bug report right away and
> integrated my changes within hours. This is the ideal situation (thanks
> again Daniel, great job! :-) - usually, things don't happen so quickly -
> especially around major release time.
Right, and that won't change with git. Or do I miss an essential point?
> THE GIT ADVANTAGE:
> I don't have to wait for the first set of changes to be merged into
> the trunk before I resync, resolve conflicts and base the second
> set on the new head revision; I simply create a new branch for
> a new change set and send a new pull request once my work is complete.
Errm ... you can still do that with svn. just continue working. Make a
new patch, update the patch in the bug report you filed, yes trac can do
that. There really is no need to wait for anything.
> The upstream maintainer has no peer pressure to merge any changes in:
> He/she is sitting on the head revision and is looking at a number of
> pull requests for change sets in various personal forks like mine; these
> are more like 'change offers' the maintainer is free to merge in if
> he/she so chooses (cherry-picking) - or postpone if this is not the time
> because for example a major release is due and they seem too risky.
So, how is it really different from the current trac system?
> I as a contributor do not really care so much: Of course I am stoked if
> my work actually makes it into the project eventually, but the point in
> time when this happens technically does not matter to me - pending
> changes will not get in my way if the merge takes a little longer.
> This is the major difference between svn and git - and I can not stress
> this advantage enough: I am decoupled from, but still connected to the
> official trunk. I can make arbitrary changes and group them in any way I
> see fit. I offer them to upstream and move on to new development.
I think i miss something fundamental here.
While there are shortcomings in the current process, they won't be
solved by changing tools.
Just my 0.02. Sorry to be the party pooper ...
P.S: I find it way harder to properly maintain a couple of git branches
and forks than doing my stuff with svn. The git userinterface is just a
pain, i regularly get confused and have no idea what to do.
P.P.S: The only real advantage I see in DVCSs is the better local
working copy managing, as in you can create local branches, commiting
locally etc. but while having dismissed git in favor of svn for a while
now, I didn't really miss these particular features.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk