Slashdot Log In
FreeBSD Begins Switch to Subversion
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jun 04, 2008 02:10 PM
from the subvert-the-dominant-paradigm dept.
from the subvert-the-dominant-paradigm dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD Project has begun the switch of its source code management system from CVS to Subversion. At this point in time, FreeBSD's developers are making changes to the base system in the Subversion repository. We have a replication system in place that exports our work to the legacy CVS tree on a continuous basis.
People who are using our extensive CVS based distribution network (including anoncvs, CVSup, cvsweb, ftp) will not be interrupted by our work-in-progress. We are committed to maintaining the existing CVS based distribution system for at least the support lifetime of all existing 'stable' branches. Security and errata patches will continue to be made available in their usual CVS locations."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: The Future of Subversion 173 comments
sciurus0 writes "As the open source version control system Subversion nears its 1.5 release, one of its developers asks, what is the project's future? On the one hand, the number of public Subversion DAV servers is still growing quadratically. On the other hand, open source developers are increasingly switching to distributed version control systems like Git and Mercurial. Is there still a need for centralized version control in some environments, or is Linus Torvalds right that all who use it are 'ugly and stupid'?" The comments on the blog post have high S/N.
Firehose:FreeBSD begins switch to Subversion by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
GIT? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GIT? (Score:5, Informative)
However, of course, there is still some distributed coding going on at the edges, but they tend to be peripheral and experimental. The developers working on these experimental branches can choose to use whatever source control system they wish. Many FreeBSD developers prefer perforce for their experimental work, but they can use git or mercurial if they wish.
Parent
Re:GIT? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:GIT? (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, Mercurial [wikipedia.org] ended up being the "best of breed" solution. It offered all the features of the competing version control systems, was portable across platforms, had a significant toolchain appear practically overnight, and is used by HUGE OSS companies like Sun and Mozilla. I've used it in my own projects and have found that it is much easier and more dynamic than the classic, monolithic model of CVS.
Parent
Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
In any case, EMACS ended up being the "best of breed" solution. It offered all the features of the competing editors, was portable across platforms, had a significant tools (and games) appear practically overnight, and is used by HUGE OSS icons like RMS. I've used it in my own projects and have found that it is much easier and more dynamic than the classic, command/insert model of VI.
har, har...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess we can finaly put away the old complaint about being a great OS in need of a good editor . . .
hawk
Re:Oh really? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? Git didn't have windows support very early on but very soon you could compile it with Cygwi
Re:GIT? (Score:4, Informative)
Googlefight! [googlefight.com]
git tutorial: 512,000 results
mercurial tutorial: 1,100,000 results
Winner: Mercurial!
Google doesn't provide JACK for GIT. GIT uses SVN. In order to use GIT with Google, you need to have a GIT->SVN translator:
http://nigel.mcnie.name/blog/using-git-for-your-sourceforgegoogle-code-project [mcnie.name] Installing a Cygwin environment is not a supportable solution for most corporations. They needed native solutions. Something which has begun to appear.I agree with you wholeheartedly. The target audience is Linux hackers. They are the ones using GIT. The business world, OTOH, has chosen Mercurial. Such is the way of things.
Parent
Re:GIT? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://people.debian.org/~igloo/popcon-graphs/index.php?packages=darcs%2Cgit-core%2Cmercurial%2Cbzr%2Csubversion%2C+cvs&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=2003-10-01&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 [debian.org]
Re:GIT? (Score:5, Informative)
git isn't terribly well suited to very large monolithic projects; you need to split into multiple smaller projects since it tracks entire trees rather than single files. When your tree is 1.3GB+ and has upwards of quarter of a million files that's rather painful either way.
It also isn't well suited to rewriting history, e.g. in the case when you have to remove a changeset because it violates someone's patent or copyright; you can rewrite the repository to remove it, but you end up renaming every commit afterwards, since their names are SHA1's dependent on every previous commit, generating tonnes of churn in many different places as the whole of history basically disappears and reappears elsewhere.
Many of git's advantages can still be leveraged with SVN; git-svn works pretty well, and it doesn't require massive upheavals in all areas of the project.
Parent
Re:GIT? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPL imposes limits on you only if you distribute GPL code (or the result of its compilation)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A talk he did on it [youtube.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) [wikipedia.org]
SVN is better for FreeBSD development (Score:3, Interesting)
Contrary to Linux, FreeBSD uses a centralized development methodology which SVN is very well-suited for. (Now, if only they hurry up with the stable release of their merge-tracking, I could say that Subversion is perfect for a centralized development model.)
Then, there's the obvious licensing issue. GIT is released under the GPL, which, I'd guess, is a little too restrictive for BSD-style people. :P
Re:dead... (Score:5, Informative)
Mercurial is interesting because it encourages teams to work together, pushing and pulling source code from each other. When the source reaches a stable point, you can push that to a central repository for building and archiving.
The interesting aspect about this design is that it actively encourages branching! Rather than treating branches as a special thing that needs to be done under a certain set of circumstances, it treats every copy of the repository as a branch. So developers can work independently. When they come back together, the tool is able to auto-merge most projects back into a single whole.
Mercurial is able to do this because it tracks the point of divergence. With that information, it can see if any of the changes truly conflict. 95% of the time, there is no conflict and Mercurial is able to merge the files auto-magically. The other 5% of the time, Mercurial will launch a merge tool and make you answer YES/NO to each difference. This process is amazingly smooth.
The key thing to keep in mind with Mercurial is that you won't want to keep all your source in one repository. (Like most companies do with CVS.) Keep a separate repository for each project or module. You can keep the repositories all in the same path, but it's much easier to work with only the code you need rather than copying around a 10GB source tree from developer to developer.
If you do decide to try Mercurial and are given a Windows development machine, I highly recommend TortoiseHG [sourceforge.net]. You'll occasionally have to run 'hg update' from the command line (the tool will prompt you), but it's otherwise a very slick way of working with Mercurial repositories.
Oh, and don't use the CVS->Mercurial conversion tools. It leaves CVS-style droppings all over creation. Just import the latest codebase and keep CVS running in read-only mode for as long as you need historical data.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, one big thing distributed source control gives you is the ability to "clone" or "fork" your own copy of the repository. This lets you make small, incremental changes that you can roll-back and merge back as you like, and then you can "push" all of your commits b
Re:dead... (Score:5, Informative)
If you are used to CVS then Subversion is definitely a step up, and it will be very familiar to your users. What's more it is well supported by IDEs and has piles of other tools like Tortoise that makes it easy for non-developers to use. Heck, if push comes to shove it can even be used as a WebDAV share with the advantage that it will automagically version your files.
The downside of Subversion is that it isn't very good at merging. Merging branches in current versions of Subversion is a manual process that is ridiculously painful. This can be mitigated somewhat using the svnmerge Python script, but even with the script merging still isn't as easy as any of the distributed version control systems. For people like Linus Torvalds that's basically a showstopper for Subversion. To them merging is basically the whole point of a version control system.
It's quite possible, however, that you have different needs than the Linux kernel. For example, none of the distributed version control systems deal well with large files. If you want to store multi-media files along with your source then Subversion is basically your only option. Likewise, if you plan on having designers or random office workers use your repository then you can forget about the distributed tools.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PORTSNAP(8) FreeBSD System Manager's Manual PORTSNAP(8)
NAME
portsnap -- fetch and extract compressed snapshots of the ports tree
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CVS is (was) what the central repository uses to store the software.
Perforce is a central repository for internal development. That way the limitations of CVS for this part of the job don't limit the developers.
But Perforce is commercial software and you can't push it on to the community.
Subversion is a free software which has the capabilities which are set as a requirement for the FreeBSD project. It has some capabilities of Perforce, it has some capabilitie