Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-23 03:37:16
On 03/23/2012 12:51 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Have any of you guys successfully used git-svn and/or hgsubversion
> with the Boost repo? Could you try and give me some hints on how
> to go about it? I'm not an expert on either Git or Hg and if a
> mistake/error will cost many hours of waiting, with indeterminate
> hit-or-miss results, then it's simply not worth trying.
There have been several posts on this list of people setting up public
git repositories synchronized with git-svn for testing. Status of those
are not known to me, but I remember trying to clone from one or two of
them which worked fine. So I assume they succeeded in using git-svn.
I have for my own boost repository used git-svn with success against
official boost svn. It is slow, but has worked fine for me from a
kubuntu box. It is slow with anything involving use of SVN, especially
the clone as it is actually fetching all boost history (90000 +
commits), but it works. I have really only used it to track trunk, and
I have never tried to push as I have no boost commit access. So as far
as a two-way system I really have no idea how well it works except for
what bold statements you can find on the net.
I have other tracked remote branches in my repo as well. But I see I
see now that I have not fetched data into remote/release branch since
2010. That is probably just becouse I have only fetched trunk, nothing
wrong with the tool. I find tracking multiple branches with git-svn to
be somewhat broken, at least with regard to follow merging from trunk to
release in boost. I have not looked into why that is so. It may be
that I am missing something, but trunk fit my needs so I left it with that.
All in all I do not feel like recommending an official git or mercurial
gateway to boost svn. It feels wrong for many reasons. For personal or
team work it may work OK. However the main reason is simply that I see
no reason why the official boost repository or repositories should not
be a git repository made public by the release team. That will just
work so much better. I am sure Mercurial would work fine as well, but I
have little experience with it so I am more reluctant to say.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk