[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: State of the WC-NG World

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:56:40 -0500

On Jul 21, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis wrote:

> While ultimately related, I apologise for "kind of / sot of"
> hijacking the thread.
> On 22/07/2009, at 06:19 , Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>> Over the past couple months, I haven't had a chance to work on wc-ng
>>> due to travel and getting married and whatnot. Hyrum has been
>>> pulling
>>> all the weight of wc-ng lately. But I'm trying to dig back in and
>>> continue pushing it forward.
>>> Right now, two of the big goals in the work are:
>>> 1) remove all usage of svn_wc_entry_t
>>> 2) remove all usage of svn_wc_adm_access_t
>> Getting rid of the adm_access batons and entry_t usages is fairly
>> straightforward at this point, and lends itself to a hight degree of
>> parallelization. I'd like to see as many people as possible get
>> involved. It would help get people aware of the wc_db APIs, and also
>> help us get to 1.7 sooner.
> Is any of this work "relatively" simple?
> Ultimately, I'm asking if there is a low enough barrier to allow non-
> committers (well perhaps its more along the lines of non-
> technically aware people - as opposed to the "rights" of commit or
> otherwise) the ability to help here at any level?

Some of the transformations are pretty straight-forward, but others
are can be more complex. The trouble is the difference isn't really
that apparent at a glance. The simple cases are pretty straight-
forward, and non-technical people (with appropriate review) would be
able to handle them. What I'm scared is somebody getting mired down
in one of the complex cases.

That being said, there appears to be little response to this thread
from people willing to help, so any additional work would be
welcomed. (I'm tempted to ping users@ and troll for folks, but I
don't have the time to review the plethora of patches that may create.)

>>> Part of the reason that I'm writing this is to discuss whether that
>>> timeframe works. We had a sorta goal of "6 month release cycle", but
>>> this would be about 9 months.
>>> Thoughts? Concerns?
> I realise that my opinion doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight
> in the overall scheme of things (being relatively new and ignorant
> to the history of the project and certainly ignorant technically) -
> but none the less;
> As an end-user, I'd much rather see point releases that address
> known show-stopper bugs and allow wc-ng the appropriate time for
> release - certainly more so than anyone feeling "pressured" into
> releasing it in any set timeframe.
> I'm not saying we shouldn't have goals / or a plan... but since the
> wc-ng is an architectural change surely, (rational-thinking) people
> aren't going to get annoyed that the community's self-imposed
> release cycle isn't strictly followed.
> 1.5 with its merge / re-integration changes was another such large
> project whereby the release was longer than expected. But I most
> certainly appreciate the functionality it has brought to SVN for me
> to use.

Hopefully we learned our lesson from the 1.5 release (see the paper
linked to from HACKING). The WC-NG bits that are going into 1.7 are
actually a small subset of what *could* happen. Greg and I have had
several discussions about what could be, after we get the WC-NG
architectural changes in place. The current work is designed to be
"stable" from a backward compat perspective, since we are going to
have to support it for a long while to come.

> And I don't presume that there is any such "scope" - but if there
> are simple changes that could be done by "anyone" - how many people
> are there lurking on the mailing lists, thinking,
> "I wish I could so something to help. Almost anything.
> But the time requirements to reach the appropriate technical
> knowledge to place me in a position to be genuinely helpful as
> opposed to consuming more time way from the project that I produce
> for it - is simply just too great."
> I don't have an answer - and there may well not even be one - but
> I'd certainly volunteer for any task that doesn't have a massive
> technical pre-requisite.

Go for it. I'm happy to review wc-ng-related patches that come in.


Received on 2009-07-29 18:57:07 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.