Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:28:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Hong Kim <kimh@domp04.adm.intelsat.int> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Use of CVS for CMU CL (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.970724181743.2161K-100000@domp04.adm.intelsat.int>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At a suggestion from Martin (from the CMU CL) project. I am writing about
some advice on use of CVS. My message and his reply are below.
I guess my questions center on
1) A reasonable branching strategy. Martin claims that the experience
of the BSD project leads one to do development on the main branch
(HEAD) and use branches to do I&T (Integration and Test) and
eventually deployment.
2) Remote development. Client/server, trade patches, cvs import?
What is good? What works well? What are the caveats to get it
working good?
Hong
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:38:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de>
To: h.kim@intelsat.int
Subject: Re: Use of CVS for CMU CL
Hello,
> For example, on branching. I see two basic models. One uses the main
> branch (HEAD) for blessed releases -- implying that new development and
> transition through I&T will be done on branches. The other says that the
> main branch is for active development and the I&T/deploy cycle are done on
> branches.
I don't know what I&T means, but I assume, a stable release. In CMUCL,
we use the HEAD branch for the experimental stuff and brnaches for
stable. Our model follows what FreeBSD does and those experiences show
clear disadvantages when activly developing on anything else than
HEAD, that means that the non-HEAD brnaches should get mostly
merged-in diffs from the HEAD branch, but not too much new material.
> Also, we are just starting to face the situation where development will be
> done at remote sites and I would like to know what the CMUCL crowd has
> done to reincorporate these remote changes. Client/server, patches, tar
> files, ????
We use client/server over ssh with no problems. Of course, that
requires that the outside groups a) are willing and capable of using
CVS, too and b) that you trust them enough to let them modify your
main CVS tree. If not, importing things from outside works good ("cvs
import").
> It will also be additional ammunition to have shown a happy customer to
> convince the Doubting Thomas' about the transition to CVS and the uses of
> branching and tagging.
Tagging, sure, but branching in CVS does not give what one might
expect. You get close branches of one tree and you can exchansges
fixes between those, but one of them is clearly the one for new
development. The other's are not as capable.
But remember that I don't run into these problems myself, I just avoid
them based on the experiences the FreeBSD folks made. You might want
to ask those about it (on freebsd-questions@freebsd.org or such) if
you want to be certain.
But then, what are the alternatives?
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de>
http://cracauer.cons.org
Fax +49 40 522 85 36
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.HPP.3.96.970724181743.2161K-100000>