[ECOS] Replacing CVS - decision time: part 2

Jonathan Larmour jifl@jifvik.org
Thu Apr 29 15:29:00 GMT 2010


On 29/04/10 09:27, coutand christophe wrote:
> 
> 
> Could anyone care to describe what the new workflow will be when 
> switching to a new RCS?

Whichever of hg or git is chosen, the workflow for basic use will be
pretty much the same. To get a copy, you do a clone, followed by pulling
in new changesets and updating your working copy from those changesets.

>  How do I condribute efficiently to eCos with the new DRCS?

Both git and hg provide technical ways to manage upstream contributions,
including git's staging area and hg's patch queues. Or of course you can
do it yourself with your own sets of diffs. Ultimately contributions will
still be in the form of posting text patches. hg's patchbomb may be
useful, or git's format-patch. So the workflow is not fixed, and there's
an element of choice.

> How do I keep my work that is not
>  accepted in 
> eCos always in sync with the latest source code? etc...

In either case, both tools will give you the chance to merge any
conflicting changes. In both cases, they should do a better job of this
than CVS did.

> DRCS tools are 
> selected based on a productive workflow, not pro/con git/hg. Obviously 
> hg is more suitable for a mix of win/linux users.

The main point of choosing something distributed is to make it easier for
people to be doing their own development - so it's not just to do with
workflow when getting and contributing to the master repo.

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss



More information about the Ecos-discuss mailing list