Re: [Gnu-arch-users] beginner needs advice

[John A Meinel]

Laurent Wandrebeck wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:43:13 -0600
> John A Meinel <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Thx for your reply John, and sorry for the delay of the answer, these days
> are quite busy ;)
> About PQM, the only i'm aware of is arch-pqm. Are there others ?
> Ever heard of a perforce->arch gateway ? i.e., there's a bkcvs for
> the kernel. We could use that for sorcery, as a perforce->cvs gw
> exists, but losing changesets would be a shame...
>  
The only PQM I know of is arch-pqm, and I haven't used it. I just have 
read the posts, and understand what it is for. I believe Andrew Suffield 
is the one who worked on it.

Well, I believe there are no plans for a bk->arch gateway because of the 
restrictions from bk. (If you use bk you are not allowed to work on 
another source control system.) I think that is only for the free 
version. So if you *pay* a few $k, then maybe you could work on the gateway.

As far as perforce->cvs->arch, I believe cscvs (change-set cvs) at least 
tries to extract changesets from cvs. I think it uses stuff like common 
log messages and check-in times, etc. It's still under development, and 
I think it's been a while since it had a full release, but you might 
look into it. If the gateway can create things that look like changesets 
in cvs, then you might not lose anything.

However, I would also say that if all these projects are open source, it 
might not be that bad to get the source, and do your own modifications.

It wouldn't seem that hard to setup a source tree that was under both 
perforce and arch. (It's how I did my cvs/arch "gateway").

You could then setup a cron job that would look for updates from 
perforce, check them out one at a time, and commit them to arch. It 
isn't a straight gateway, and is less than optimal, but it *is* likely 
to work.

You would likely want 1 tree for each branch in perforce, which may 
become an administrative overhead. But without a good tool for branches 
(like arch) most people don't generate that many branches. I know I used 
to try and keep a dev branch, but because cvs doesn't handle the 
multi-merge problem very well, I always re-merged to head, and then 
created a new branch. So there were only 2 live branches at any one 
time. With arch, it's very easy to scale to *many* live branches. Esp. 
since tla now requires submission branches, I have maybe 5 small 
branches that exist.

> > I hope I didn't tell you more than you wanted to know,
> > John
> > =:->
> >    
> I've got the feel one never knows enough about tla :)
> (except Tom and a couple other old hackers on it of course;)
> Regards,
>  
Yeah, it does feel that way sometimes.

John
=:->

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature