Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29948
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 64.97.136.137 cause and error)
Message-ID: <016d01c7a299$4ef91070$39dc2f52@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
To: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>,
	"Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com>,
	"Wez Furlong" <kingwez@gmail.com>,
	"Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org>,
	"Edin Kadribasic" <edin@krug.dk>,
	"PHP Internals List" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <4e89b4260705280856t47429e54ofcc182e02a6627e5@mail.gmail.com> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE3AFF97@us-ex1.zend.net> <465CFFF8.7070603@lerdorf.com> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE3AFFA2@us-ex1.zend.net> <001d01c7a27f$6d12bf80$39dc2f52@foxbox> <465D13E4.9050201@lerdorf.com> <1237063851.20070530094541@marcus-boerger.de> <465D2FB0.5060308@lerdorf.com> <014601c7a293$3e047440$39dc2f52@foxbox> <465D35D2.4050001@lerdorf.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:02:51 +0100
Organization: Zend Technologies
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] better changeset tracking
From: steph@zend.com ("Steph Fox")

Rasmus,

>> We've kinda moved away from the problem in hand. Moving the entire
>> repository over to svn doesn't make it any easier to know when someone
>> commits something that should be merged and doesn't merge it. It also
>> doesn't do anything to resolve the relationship between PHP branch
>> releases and PECL extension development. Both issues now will need
>> thinking through in svn terms as well as in cvs terms, if they're to be
>> resolved at all.
>>
>> Two weeks doesn't sound long enough.
>
> Well, the problem is that if the work involved to do this is in any way
> CVS-specific, it will be throw-away work once we move away from CVS,
> which is inevitable.

I agree entirely - that's exactly what I meant by 'thinking through in svn 
terms as well as in cvs terms'.

What we don't know at this point is the lifespan
> of CVS.  I'm unmotivated to do anything with SVN with the major 1.5
> release coming up in a month or two.  But if someone else is gung ho
> enough to volunteer sooner and has an eye on 1.5 to make sure the stuff
> will be compatible with the new release, perhaps things can move quicker.

Given that this entire thread came about because at least two of the core 
team don't have time to deal with merging to HEAD, that doesn't seem very 
likely. But you're right to put an end to quick-fix and possibly 
cvs-specific solutions. Does svn even support validation scripting? Does 
anyone even know without checking?

Lukas was onto a good thing with his idea of moving less challenging areas 
of the CVS repository to SVN first IMHO. It'll make the task of moving the 
difficult ones less horrendous, and it'll give some idea of the problems 
likely to be encountered in adoption (if any).

- Steph