[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectBitkeeper change granularity (was Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin)
    On Friday 01 February 2002 06:11 am, Horst von Brand wrote:
    > Larry McVoy <> said:
    > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:29:58AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
    > > > That sounds almost like what I was looking for, with two differences.
    > > >
    > > > (1) Implement the collapsed set so bk records that it is equivalent to
    > > > the individual patchsets. Only record that information in my tree.
    > > > I need the detailed history of what changes went into the collapsed
    > > > set, nobody else does.
    > > >
    > > > (2) Somebody else creates a change against the collapsed set and I pull
    > > > that change. bk notices that the change is again a collapsed set
    > > > for which I have local detail. The external change becomes a
    > > > branch off the last detailed patch in the collapsed set.
    > >
    > > This is certainly possible to do. However, unless you are willing to
    > > fund this development, we aren't going to do it. We will pick up the
    > > costs of making changes that you want if and only if we have commercial
    > > customers who want (or are likely to want) the same thing. Nothing
    > > personal, it's a business and we make tradeoffs like that all the time.
    > I wonder how your commercial customers develop code then. Either each
    > programmer futzes around in his/her own tree, and then creates a patch (or
    > some such) for everybody to see (then I don't see the point of source
    > control as a help to the individual developer), or everybody sees all the
    > backtracking going on everywhere (in which case the repository is a mostly
    > useless mess AFAICS).

    Speaking from my experience on OS/2 back at IBM (I.E. about as big as it
    gets), they simply don't mind having amazing amounts of cruft in the database
    dating back to at least the last time they switched source control systems.

    Under those circumstances, looking at the code history becomes a major
    archaeological expedition, and you either still have the original
    implementors around who have it all in their heads and don't NEED the
    database, or you have people who just look at the code and try to guess what
    it means, possibly asking colleagues about particularly confusing bits.

    IBM's source control system always struck me as a graveyard of old code more
    than anything else. Lots of the really old stuff was stored offline on tapes
    and CDs filed lockers nobody ever opened, with backup copies at some big "we
    have a vault beneath NORAD" data warehousing company.

    That's my impression, anyway. (A few years out of date now.) My experience
    with the source control system was that it DID have the complete revision
    history in it going back to the 1980's, but it was far more work than it was
    worth to try to mine through it to find something unless you were
    specifically looking to place blame and prove something wasn't YOUR fault.
    Nobody really ever had time to actually go through it for any other reason,
    we had far too much new stuff backlogged. (And yeah a lot of changes were
    made where some old timer would pipe up afterwards "we tried that five years
    ago, and it didn't work for the same reason you just noticed". But this was
    the kind of state that was usefully kept in people's heads, not in the source
    control system.)

    Now in an open source, the source control system with history might be a
    useful educational resource. (Non-commercial developers don't have to hit
    the ground running the way commercial ones do.) But too much granularity
    would definitely diminish that usefulness. Flood people with low signal and
    high noise, and only archaeologists will ever care about it.

    A system that maintained obscene amounts of granularity but HID it (showing
    you only diffs between release versions unless you specifically asked so see
    more detail) would be a distinct improvement over a system that forces every
    query be an archaeological dig. But since 99% of the people do NOT want to
    go on an archaeological dig, and since for most things only the most active
    10% of the developers even care about the -pre releases and only have time to
    track/sync with the main releases...

    Maintaining the "reverted before it left the original implementors tree"
    state at ALL is clearly more trouble than it's worth. If the original
    IMPLEMENTOR is likely to delete that after they ship, nobody else should EVER
    care unless they're writing some sort of biography of that developer or
    simply engaged in hero-worship.

    I.E. yes, I think we honestly do want an easy way to limit the granularity of
    propogated diffs. We can do this right now by exporting to patch and
    re-importing, but it seems that if we do, then bitkeeper's sync mechanism
    becomes a problem to be worked around. I'd say this instance of all-out-war
    between what developers are trying to do and what bitkeeper is trying to do
    highlights a design gap in bitkeeper.

    Just my opinion, your mileage may vary. :)


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.027 / U:35.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site