[CP2K:2900] How to use git as a client for the CVS server
hut... at pci.uzh.ch
hut... at pci.uzh.ch
Wed Nov 3 10:01:54 UTC 2010
just some remarks on the topic from my side.
When we set up the cp2k server at Berlios, CVS was the only option as a source control system.
Since then discussions on moving away from Berlios and CVS are coming up regularly. On Berlios
they currently also support 'subversion'. Up to now, the pain of changing the host and/or the
source control system has been considered too big compared to the gain.
The core developers of cp2k also prefer (at least the last time I inquired) a centralized system
(meaning e.g. subversion over bazaar). The reason is that we believe that this way development
is more transparent and there will be less conflicts. I know this topic is very controversial, just
do a Google search on the topic and you will find ample discussions.
However, if somebody feels more comfortable with another more local, decentralized system
we (ok, I can only talk for myself) don't want to hold you back.
-----cp... at googlegroups.com wrote: -----
To: cp... at googlegroups.com
From: Toon Verstraelen <Toon.Ver... at UGent.be>
Sent by: cp... at googlegroups.com
Date: 11/02/2010 05:08PM
Subject: Re: [CP2K:2900] How to use git as a client for the CVS server
On 10/31/2010 02:10 PM, Ondrej Marsalek wrote:
> Hi Toon,
> thanks for this, I think it is useful to have access to CP2K through
> something more flexible than CVS. Some time ago, I have tried, with
> the same motivation, to set up and keep up-to-date a bazaar repository
> of CP2K at Launchpad. Basically the same thing, just with bazaar and
> Launchpad in place of git and github. See the conversation that
> followed here:
> Judging by the relatively long silence, your take on this matter does
> a better job and is not taken as "disrespectful to the work of others"
> or a "split project". I am glad that this is the case and am looking
> forward to using your git mirror of CP2K at github.com.
I remember some got a bit too excited last time. :) Hence the disclaimer.
I was disappointed by the remarks you got: they were missing the point.
CP2K could become much more reliable with a distributed workflow.
Currently almost all patches just go in the CVS head after (or before) some
basic testing. It would be much safer to let all development happen in
personal branches until things are tested, reviewed, documented, and so on.
This would also make it easier to produce on a stable version. Modern CVS
alternatives (like git, bzr and others) have all the tools to make this
approach fun and easy.
I don't know the reason why it is not done with CP2K. Anyone?
P.S. My github account is merely a personal remote storage for my branches. I
use it transfer patches to various machines. Think of it as a branch in the
CVS without having CVS write access. If it is useful for others, the better.
Just keep in mind that a continuous transfer of patches from CVS to git
sometimes fails, as it did recently with the qs-refactoring merge. One-time
conversions do work well, certainly with cvs2git.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cp2k" group.
To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cp2k+uns... at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k?hl=en.
More information about the CP2K-user