|
Size: 3901
Comment:
|
Size: 2246
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| ## page was renamed from GlennTarbox/HgDevelopment | |
| Line 8: | Line 9: |
| [[TableOfContents]] | <<TableOfContents>> |
| Line 10: | Line 11: |
| = On Using Hg = | = Developing with DVCS = Distributed Version Control Systems are a huge improvement in the system development process for a number of reasons but its easily researched on Google. So, I'm not going to get into to all the issues. Some thoughts |
| Line 13: | Line 15: |
| Line 14: | Line 17: |
| * Space is discretized into developers * Time is discretized into commits * Add a little meta data linking points in the developer / commit sequence and you have a graph describing the evolution of the code. Throw on some collision free identifiers (SHA-1) and you have the complete genetic history of every line of code |
* Space is discretized into developers * Time is discretized into commits * Add a little meta data linking points in the developer / commit sequence and you have a graph describing the evolution of the code. Throw on some collision free identifiers (SHA-1) and you have the complete genetic history of every line of code |
| Line 18: | Line 25: |
| Line 19: | Line 27: |
| 1. Patching is less useful than publishing your repo * Much finer grained visibility. Proper branch naming communicate the author's intended state of readiness * For developers without a way to publish a repo, patches can be submitted to Trac * check the patch for collisions with the "blessed" repo as discussed below * the patch will be merged with the repo on a branch depending on its state of testing / modification |
1. Only push to repos you own * This is probably the least understood aspect of DVCS. The key concept to understand here is that as long as you can get other people's work, you should be pulling and merging from their repos, and only pushing to your own. An example is the repo on your laptop being pushed to '''your repo''' on the server for publishing. * When your repo is published, others can pull / merge / publish. By convention, cerain people's repos, specfically, certain branches on well known repos will have meaning. * There are no permissions required which turns version control on its head. You publish your work, make it known (the usual suspects), and it can be pulled by anyone with interest and as part of the process used by a specific project |
| Line 25: | Line 37: |
| 1. When a feature is ready for review, an aggregate patch should be assembled and posted on trac consistent with the Sage review process * This applies to just the finance and dsageng activities at this early stage. (See below) * Adjustments made during review can be posted as patches or, preferably, a branch url indicating the commit. The advantage of the latter is removal of ambiguity should bugs arise later. It becomes straightforward to reconstruct the state of the entire tree for that developer when the upgrade was checked in. |
|
| Line 29: | Line 38: |
| = Hg for sage-finance and dsageng = | 1. Relevant Videos - on Git but the concepts are explained |
| Line 31: | Line 40: |
| The current model is you push to your own repo's. For most, this will mean pushing to a repo in your home directory on sage.math. I'll pull revisions / branches into my repo which is, by convention only, the official state for finance and dsageng. | * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2199332044603874737&q=&hl=en |
| Line 33: | Line 42: |
| It is critical to push to your public repo often. We'll come up with a naming convention but there will be branches marked as your current working state. You shouldn't merge your working branch into your "ready to merge with ghtdak branch" unless you've checked for collisions with the blessed trunk at a minimum... and it would help if you would check for collisions with my primary working branch. To facilitate this process, my repo, can be found at http://tarbox.org:9000 which can be browsed and "pulled" from using hg. Its also an easy way to determine if you need to merge or whether I've been asleep... I'll also clone my repo on sage.math from time to time but thats really only useful for those with accounts on that machine and as a backup / disaster mechanism... of course, as we'll be replicating all the changes amongst ourselves, the implied backup strategy of distributed development is very useful. You should read the mercurial docs... but some hints. If you want a clean all by itself repo with all the history from the beginning of time: {{{ hg clone http://tarbox.org:9000 sage-ght }}} remember about branches. Some helpful commands * hg help branches * hg help branch * hg help clone * hg update -C finpatch * figure out how to get hg view to work * hint: get hgk from the mercurial site, adjust your .hgrc * this will likely be part of the sage distro soon enough. * hg view is nice but doesn't show branch names... I don't get it... but, fortunately, there's hg glog which makes a pretty nice ascii graph which includes branch info. You need to enable the extension... all documented. |
* http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3999952944619245780 |
Contents
Developing with DVCS
Distributed Version Control Systems are a huge improvement in the system development process for a number of reasons but its easily researched on Google. So, I'm not going to get into to all the issues. Some thoughts
- There are only branches and revisions.
- Think of code development as a process through time and space.
- Space is discretized into developers
- Time is discretized into commits
- Add a little meta data linking points in the developer / commit sequence and you have a graph describing the evolution of the code. Throw on some collision free identifiers (SHA-1) and you have the complete genetic history of every line of code
- Repositories are a cache / detail without significance in and of themselves
- don't forget to push often so others can import your changes
- Only push to repos you own
This is probably the least understood aspect of DVCS. The key concept to understand here is that as long as you can get other people's work, you should be pulling and merging from their repos, and only pushing to your own. An example is the repo on your laptop being pushed to your repo on the server for publishing.
- When your repo is published, others can pull / merge / publish. By convention, cerain people's repos, specfically, certain branches on well known repos will have meaning.
- There are no permissions required which turns version control on its head. You publish your work, make it known (the usual suspects), and it can be pulled by anyone with interest and as part of the process used by a specific project
You are not your code - http://blog.red-bean.com/sussman/?p=96
- Relevant Videos - on Git but the concepts are explained