I am doing some hacking, as evidenced on the rt-users list.
Is it bad form to be hacking on the 2-0-11 codebase?
rob
It depends on what you’re doing. 
the cvs -head may be better to hack
on, as it’s easier for me to apply patches against and you get the benefit
of the latest code, at the cost of possibly slightly decreased stability
and a moving target.
I’m currently investigating other version control systems
such as arch and bitkeeper, which will make it somewhat easier for sites
to maintain their own branches off my repository, which might make
things more interesting in the future…
So, what are you doing?
JesseOn Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:56:22PM -0600, Rob Walker wrote:
I am doing some hacking, as evidenced on the rt-users list.
Is it bad form to be hacking on the 2-0-11 codebase?
rob
rt-devel mailing list
rt-devel@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
It depends on what you’re doing.
on, as it’s easier for me to apply patches against and you get the benefit
of the latest code, at the cost of possibly slightly decreased stability
and a moving target.
Aye, there’s the rub. I need stability at this point.
I’m currently investigating other version control systems
such as arch and bitkeeper, which will make it somewhat easier for sites
to maintain their own branches off my repository, which might make
things more interesting in the future…
Sigh, same here. I am setting up an internet infrastructure for a company I
am starting to work with. We need to implement an VCS, but setting up and
training everyone on CVS just feels like such a step backwards. ugh.
So, what are you doing?
I guess it was wrong to call it ‘hacking’, ‘piddling around’ is more like it.
I am coming at this from a keystone background, you got us because of Dave’s
suggestion and WhitePJ’s brilliant move. 
Here is what I have done so
far, little as it is.
-
on the part where you show Queues, where it says “(Check box to revoke
right)”, I made it only show up where there are rights to be shown. This is
the patch I submitted to the -users list. -
In the same area, I have added some checking to add “(no rights assigned)”
if there are no rights to show. -
I changed the string “New Rights” to be “Available Rights”, as “New
Rights” confused me. I thought of new rights which didn’t exist before, not
rights which I could assign to a user or a group.
I am kind of looking at the following:
-
The part where we show the current rights is driving me crazy, since it
isn’t sorted the same way as the “New Rights” listbox is sorted. -
Shortening the listbox of “New Rights” to only show the rights which are
available to be assigned. Hence the name “Available Rights”
As you can see, there is nothing here which is outside of the file
SelectRights. I am not a very good programmer, so any time you get a patch
from me, consider it not a patch worthy of distribution, but a proof of
concept which Works For Me ™. Over time, I hope to be able to integrate
more within the style of current rt code.
rob
It depends on what you’re doing.
on, as it’s easier for me to apply patches against and you get the benefit
of the latest code, at the cost of possibly slightly decreased stability
and a moving target.Aye, there’s the rub. I need stability at this point.
Actually the current -head is, imo, more stable than .11 (which clearly means
it’s time to start gearing up for another release
I’m currently investigating other version control systems
such as arch and bitkeeper, which will make it somewhat easier for sites
to maintain their own branches off my repository, which might make
things more interesting in the future…Sigh, same here. I am setting up an internet infrastructure for a company I
am starting to work with. We need to implement an VCS, but setting up and
training everyone on CVS just feels like such a step backwards. ugh.
Finding anything interesting besides those I mentioned?
So, what are you doing?
I guess it was wrong to call it ‘hacking’, ‘piddling around’ is more like it.
I am coming at this from a keystone background, you got us because of Dave’s
suggestion and WhitePJ’s brilliant move.
far, little as it is.
Hrm. Have you put any thought/effort into an import tool?
- The part where we show the current rights is driving me crazy, since it
isn’t sorted the same way as the “New Rights” listbox is sorted.
There’s a patch in the buglist for that.
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
I’m currently investigating other version control systems
such as arch and bitkeeper […]Sigh, same here. I am setting up an internet infrastructure for a company I
am starting to work with. We need to implement an VCS, but setting up and
training everyone on CVS just feels like such a step backwards. ugh.Finding anything interesting besides those I mentioned?
You should definitely look at Perforce http://www.perforce.com/. It’s
an excellent product, and they offer free licenses for open source
products (see http://www.perforce.com/perforce/price.html).
Marc Hedlund
e: marc at precipice dot org
Actually the current -head is, imo, more stable than .11 (which clearly
means
it’s time to start gearing up for another release
Finding anything interesting besides those I mentioned?
not reall. Bitkeeper has windows clicky tools which is nice, and will be
integrated with MS products going forward, from what I can tell. However
that licensing makes me wonder if it will be the big one going forward. But
it doesn’t seem to have the user base of CVS. (But what does? I can hear
myself asking) arch, subversion, cvs, bitkeeper seems to be the only list
which is worth looking at.
I sure wish that something like savannah would be more of a plug-in based
hosting tool instead of a big wrapper around their choice of VCS, tracking,
mailing list manager. In the end, sourceforge/savannah feels like a big cow
pie sitting there holding all of the good seeds together in one place. But
you only get the seeds that the cow says you get, and you do not want to go
replacing the already-installed seeds with the ones you want in there.
suggestion and WhitePJ’s brilliant move.
far, little as it is.Hrm. Have you put any thought/effort into an import tool?
That’s a good idea. I don’t need it. The ony keystone system I have any use
for right now has about 20 tickets in it. My wife can deal with dual systems
until we close all of the old keystone slips. I might work on an import tool
if I feel anal enough about our history, but I don’t think I will.
- The part where we show the current rights is driving me crazy, since
it
isn’t sorted the same way as the “New Rights” listbox is sorted.There’s a patch in the buglist for that.
ahh, gimme gimme gimme!
rob
There’s a patch in the buglist for that.
ahh, gimme gimme gimme!
Is this from http://fsck.com/rt2/NoAuth/Buglist.html ? Everything there asks
me for my username and password.
rob
guest/guestOn Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:54:27PM -0600, Rob Walker wrote:
On Thursday 07 February 2002 14:47, Rob Walker wrote:
There’s a patch in the buglist for that.
ahh, gimme gimme gimme!
Is this from http://fsck.com/rt2/NoAuth/Buglist.html ? Everything there asks
me for my username and password.rob
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
guest/guest
Thanks!
Um, as guest, am I able to make modifications to the bug and interact with RT
the way users are supposed to do so?
Am I supposed to simply put the patch in there somewhere?
rob
I’m currently investigating other version control systems
such as arch and bitkeeper, which will make it somewhat easier for sites
to maintain their own branches off my repository, which might make
things more interesting in the future…
I’m quite happy with cvs import here.
Sigh, same here. I am setting up an internet infrastructure for a company I
am starting to work with. We need to implement an VCS, but setting up and
training everyone on CVS just feels like such a step backwards. ugh.Finding anything interesting besides those I mentioned?
Two open-source systems you might want to consider:
Aegis: http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
- Mature, complete configuration management system. Unix only, but WWW
interface.
Subversion: http://subversion.tigris.org/
- Very interesting architecture, but still pre-alpha.
You can find a good list of CM tools here:
Fabian
Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!
Two open-source systems you might want to consider:
Aegis: http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
- Mature, complete configuration management system. Unix only, but WWW
interface.
nod I actually spent a bit of time with aegis a while ago and decided
that its manual was too obtuse and it was too process-bound. The fact that
it doesn’t have a way of allowing remote developers to interact with a
repository without local shell access also bothered me. But over the past
day or two, I’ve been re-familiarizing myself with the package and
think I see ways around most of my major issues with a little bit of scripting.
Subversion: http://subversion.tigris.org/
- Very interesting architecture, but still pre-alpha.
A friend of mine hacks on subversion. It looks very interesting, but still
isn’t quite ready for primetime and it doesn’t have one of the two features
that I really really want: the ability to do distributed repositories cleanly,
so I can work on a branch on my laptop (without net) , checking in every time
I hit a micro-milestone and then merge up to the “main” repository when I
finish.
I’m currently leaning toward spending a couple days playing with an aegis
repository and the RT 2.1 codebase. The basic plan would be to leave the
2.0 branch in CVS, but to do new development in the new VCS. Has anyone
here worked with aegis?
-j
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
I’m currently leaning toward spending a couple days playing with an aegis
repository and the RT 2.1 codebase. The basic plan would be to leave the
2.0 branch in CVS, but to do new development in the new VCS. Has anyone
here worked with aegis?
I started to, but couldn’t get it to import our existing RCS (!) files
sanely. And I have largely the same problems with it that you do, and
while I have a good idea of how to work around most of them, I don’t
really have the time to create the necessary wrappers and other things
to make it acceptable as a replacement for our current setup.
(And I’m still seriously bummed that the license for Perforce that I
worked so hard on getting freed up for general university use turned out
to be academic-use-only, so I can’t use it for infrastructure. grump)
brandon s. allbery [linux][solaris][japh][freebsd]
allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [openafs][heimdal][too many hats]
allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering
KF8NH
carnegie mellon university [“better check the oblivious first”
-ke6sls]
that I really really want: the ability to do distributed repositories
cleanly,
so I can work on a branch on my laptop (without net) , checking in every
time
I hit a micro-milestone and then merge up to the “main” repository when I
finish.I’m currently leaning toward spending a couple days playing with an aegis
repository and the RT 2.1 codebase. The basic plan would be to leave the
2.0 branch in CVS, but to do new development in the new VCS. Has anyone
here worked with aegis?
Many of my qualms about bitkeeper went away after perusing their site for some
real data. I see that a number of people use it for everything from their
home directory files to their web pages.
IIRC, it reverts to GPL if the bitkeeper servers go away.
I think it all boils down to the logging messages and the worry over them. We
might be able to entice windows users to hack on rt that way, with a window
gui for interaction with the repository.
rob
I get the impression from their website that they don’t even have a
working win32 client. Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but under
the NT section they describe the normal Win32 case as being:
“Most sites using Aegis and Windows NT together do so by running Aegis
on the Unix systems, but building and testing on the NT systems. The
work areas and repository are accessed via Samba or NFS.”
Not that it probably matters for 97% of RT/DBIx hackers. Its just
something I noticed and was somewhat surprised about.
Also, and this is just my own commentary. Does RT really need a new
version control system? It seems like there is still a lot of things
that could be added to RT, and futzing with the version control system
is not (traditionally) a trivial task. I dono, maybe a new vc system
will help spurn rt development to new heights. . .
Also, I’m inclined to believe that subversion will be the-right-thing
when it becomes available, so I’m not sure I see the value in changing
to something that may or may not be good enough and then possibly having
to switch yet again in the future when subversion becomes ready.
Then again, that green grass over the fence looks a whole lot greener
then the grass on this side.
-Matt
I have worked on and off with aegis for about 2 years now. I have been a
careful watcher of the mailing list for 1.5 yrs.
I am in the process of moving a substantial project onto it. 3/4M LOC. 16
builds on 5 architectures etc. etc.
I will say it takes an investment, but it can be well worth it depending on
your goals.
I’m not sure exactly what your problems are with the remote development
issues but there seem to be a lot of people making it work with aegis.
aedist seems to be what most people use
So, under one possible scenario you (Jesse) would set up an aegis project,
release some version of RT 2.0.X and place for public download: the tar
installer as well as the .ae (aedist file from “aedist -send -baseline”) of
your COMPLETE repository. If someone has a change they can grab your
baseline aedistfile (and any external dependencies perl, etc) and set up an
aegis build environment of their own. Then they (the contributor) can
start a new change (or branch) and modify the code as they see fit. Go
through some amount of process…(testing ;-)…and eventually end the change
(or branch). They (the contributor) can then wrap up that change, JUST the
change(or branch), and send that back to you via “aedist -send -p xxxx” .
Then you (Jesse) can do an “aedist -receive” that will create a new change
for you (number will be different than the change number of originator)
that you can look over and then choose to integrate into your “golden”
baseline.
After making all of your internal changes and possibly accepting external
changes (via “aedist -receive”) you can then end the branch that
corresponds to the next release, and release the new version of RT (2.0.Y).
It’s tar installer, .ae of the entire project (“aedist -send -baseline”)
and a .ae of the differences since the last version of RT(“aedist -send -p
xxxxxx”) can then be posted for everyone to consume.
Hot fixes can be done in the same way, just aedist the change that includes
the hotfix.
Anyway this is just a re-iteration of what is already in the Users Guide
(Section 11) Geographically distributed development.
One advantage to aegis’s change “package” is that you do not need to be
connected to the repository to obtain updates. I.E. company X keeps a copy
of a source repository behind a firewall, doing a CVSUP is impossible (so
say-Eth the Sys-Admin anyway ;). With the “package” files, the person
running the main repository can just E-Mail,HTTP download,FTP
download,Sneaker-Net the .ae files to the client. Basically, however you
could send a patchfile you can send a “smarter” patchfile, the aedist file.
I don’t know of a really strong reason that anyone would need to have
direct access to the repository. The only two I can think of right now is
if you want someone outside of BPS (Best Prac…) to be an “integrator”, or
be able to create change requests. I am making a HUGE assumption that you
(Jesse) or a BPS employee would be doing ALL of the go/no-go integration
decisions. As well as deciding what reported bugs get assigned to aegis
change requests.
Otherwise, let everyone maintain their own aegis project that mirrors yours
through the use of the .ae (baseline) and .ae (updates), this is similar to
doing a CVS get and CVSUP. You can keep everyone on the bleeding edge by
sending a .ae for each change that you complete, heck send that to the
rt-devel list instead of/along with patchfiles. Others that are
contributing can do the same (post .ae’s to the list) and everyone can
choose to stay on edge or “pick and choose”, whatever.
This is a bit different paradigm than CVS and patchfiles, but I don’t think
its all that much different/worse.
Aegis seems a bit to wrangle with at first, the price you pay for all of
it’s checks-and -balances I guess, and it is primarily UNIX, don’t know how
this affects the community. But it can do a lot to help enforce “rules” of
development and can do even more to keep from shooting yourself in the foot
(figure of speech) if you set it up to do so. Let me also mention you can
configure it to be as “loose” as you want as well. For instance I have
personal projects where I play all of the aegis roles and do none of the
testing etc. but I get all of the metrics collection, reports, etc. etc.
There has been lots of traffic about aegis and distributed devel. Many,
many different ideas, I think Peter mentioned he had an idea about making
aegis look like a CVS server so people could get the code with a CVS
client, but I don’t know if any work is being done or will be done. But I
think with the kind of quality people there are in the aegis community
something will come about.
There is also lots of work being/been done with making aegis work in
co-operation with CVS.
If CVS just isn’t cutting it, but you want a solution that is similar. I
think the next best answer is Perforce http://www.perforce.com. It at
least groups many of the logical things together that CVS doesn’t. But
there again, at some point you’ll need to connect to a repository directly.
Sorry this is so long.
Anyway, these are just my rambling thoughts.
Others may have much more elegant solutions.
I hope it helps answer a question or two or, more importantly, spurs a
question or two.
Jesse, thanks again for RT.
Joshua Johnson–On Friday, February 08, 2002 12:20:48 PM -0500 Jesse Vincent jesse@bestpractical.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:02:02AM +0200, Fabian Ritzmann wrote:
Two open-source systems you might want to consider:
Aegis: http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
- Mature, complete configuration management system. Unix only, but WWW
interface.nod I actually spent a bit of time with aegis a while ago and decided
that its manual was too obtuse and it was too process-bound. The fact
that it doesn’t have a way of allowing remote developers to interact with
a repository without local shell access also bothered me. But over the
past day or two, I’ve been re-familiarizing myself with the package and
think I see ways around most of my major issues with a little bit of
scripting.Subversion: http://subversion.tigris.org/
- Very interesting architecture, but still pre-alpha.
A friend of mine hacks on subversion. It looks very interesting, but still
isn’t quite ready for primetime and it doesn’t have one of the two
features that I really really want: the ability to do distributed
repositories cleanly, so I can work on a branch on my laptop (without
net) , checking in every time I hit a micro-milestone and then merge up
to the “main” repository when I finish.I’m currently leaning toward spending a couple days playing with an aegis
repository and the RT 2.1 codebase. The basic plan would be to leave the
2.0 branch in CVS, but to do new development in the new VCS. Has anyone
here worked with aegis?-j
–
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
rt-devel mailing list
rt-devel@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel
I get the impression from their website that they don’t even have a
working win32 client. Perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but under
the NT section they describe the normal Win32 case as being:“Most sites using Aegis and Windows NT together do so by running Aegis
on the Unix systems, but building and testing on the NT systems. The
work areas and repository are accessed via Samba or NFS.”Not that it probably matters for 97% of RT/DBIx hackers. Its just
something I noticed and was somewhat surprised about.
Yep, aegis runs suid. (needed to maintain security) AFAIK that's not easy
on Windows.
Also, and this is just my own commentary. Does RT really need a new
version control system? It seems like there is still a lot of things
that could be added to RT, and futzing with the version control system
is not (traditionally) a trivial task. I dono, maybe a new vc system
will help spurn rt development to new heights. . .
I can't speak of the need for new version control for RT.
But I personally note a difference between version control and
process/configuration management.
Aegis, for better or worse helps control the "how" of development and as
such can add another layer of defense against stupid mistakes. If
configured it can prevent someone submitting a patch that doesn’t build. It
can require that a test case be submitted with the patch to prove the patch
fixes the issue (must fail before patch and pass after patch). Things like
this can easily be handled by the expertise of the developer for a while,
but it does always seem to become increasingly difficult as things grow.
And it can do other things like building a regression set, collecting
metrics, etc. etc.
There have been quite a few announcements of what I call "CVS
second-generation" tools lately:
BitKeeper
Arch
Subversion
But these are all addressed to take on CVS's shortcomings, none of them
tackle some of the issues that aegis does. They all look really cool,
don’t get me wrong. But they aren’t an apples for apples comparison with
aegis.
Again, it all depends on the goals of your development project. I don't
know what Jesse has in mind.
Also, I’m inclined to believe that subversion will be the-right-thing
when it becomes available, so I’m not sure I see the value in changing
to something that may or may not be good enough and then possibly having
to switch yet again in the future when subversion becomes ready.
I'll only say that there seem to be many candidates for the "CVS
second-generation" above. The competition for the spot should help deliver
a great product.
Sorry this is so long.
That’s exactly what I needed. It’s more that aegis docs are a little hard
to deal with sometimes and it is a much more complex system than CVS with
a fairly different mindset, which requires some serious work to wrap one’s head
around fully. I guess the one thing that still doesn’t seem easy
is to provide anonymous read-only access to the live repository.
Is the right thing there just to script aedist into a commit hook?
On the client side, I guess a small perl script that does a wget of the .ae
file and an aerecieve would mostly mimic “cvs update” against a remote
repository. Or could a script actually ssh to the aegis server and do an aedist
|aerecieve (on the local host) on demand?
Is there a nice aegis webui somewhere?
Thanks,
Jesse
Anyway, these are just my rambling thoughts.
Others may have much more elegant solutions.I hope it helps answer a question or two or, more importantly, spurs a
question or two.Jesse, thanks again for RT.
Joshua Johnson
Two open-source systems you might want to consider:
Aegis: http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
- Mature, complete configuration management system. Unix only, but WWW
interface.nod I actually spent a bit of time with aegis a while ago and decided
that its manual was too obtuse and it was too process-bound. The fact
that it doesn’t have a way of allowing remote developers to interact with
a repository without local shell access also bothered me. But over the
past day or two, I’ve been re-familiarizing myself with the package and
think I see ways around most of my major issues with a little bit of
scripting.Subversion: http://subversion.tigris.org/
- Very interesting architecture, but still pre-alpha.
A friend of mine hacks on subversion. It looks very interesting, but still
isn’t quite ready for primetime and it doesn’t have one of the two
features that I really really want: the ability to do distributed
repositories cleanly, so I can work on a branch on my laptop (without
net) , checking in every time I hit a micro-milestone and then merge up
to the “main” repository when I finish.I’m currently leaning toward spending a couple days playing with an aegis
repository and the RT 2.1 codebase. The basic plan would be to leave the
2.0 branch in CVS, but to do new development in the new VCS. Has anyone
here worked with aegis?-j–
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
rt-devel mailing list
rt-devel@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
Jesse and I abused the wireless infarstructure in our respective locals,
along the way Jesse convinced me that having a more flexiable vc system
would infact help advance RT development.
-Matt
Jesse,
Have you looked at arch yet?
I haven’t had time to use it, but it seems to win quite a bit of mindshare
now…
-alexOn Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jesse Vincent wrote:
Sorry this is so long.
That’s exactly what I needed. It’s more that aegis docs are a little hard
to deal with sometimes and it is a much more complex system than CVS with
a fairly different mindset, which requires some serious work to wrap one’s head
around fully. I guess the one thing that still doesn’t seem easy
is to provide anonymous read-only access to the live repository.Is the right thing there just to script aedist into a commit hook?
On the client side, I guess a small perl script that does a wget of the .ae
file and an aerecieve would mostly mimic “cvs update” against a remote
repository. Or could a script actually ssh to the aegis server and do an aedist
|aerecieve (on the local host) on demand?Is there a nice aegis webui somewhere?
Thanks,
JesseAnyway, these are just my rambling thoughts.
Others may have much more elegant solutions.I hope it helps answer a question or two or, more importantly, spurs a
question or two.Jesse, thanks again for RT.
Joshua Johnson
–On Friday, February 08, 2002 12:20:48 PM -0500 Jesse Vincent jesse@bestpractical.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:02:02AM +0200, Fabian Ritzmann wrote:
Two open-source systems you might want to consider:
Aegis: http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
- Mature, complete configuration management system. Unix only, but WWW
interface.nod I actually spent a bit of time with aegis a while ago and decided
that its manual was too obtuse and it was too process-bound. The fact
that it doesn’t have a way of allowing remote developers to interact with
a repository without local shell access also bothered me. But over the
past day or two, I’ve been re-familiarizing myself with the package and
think I see ways around most of my major issues with a little bit of
scripting.Subversion: http://subversion.tigris.org/
- Very interesting architecture, but still pre-alpha.
A friend of mine hacks on subversion. It looks very interesting, but still
isn’t quite ready for primetime and it doesn’t have one of the two
features that I really really want: the ability to do distributed
repositories cleanly, so I can work on a branch on my laptop (without
net) , checking in every time I hit a micro-milestone and then merge up
to the “main” repository when I finish.I’m currently leaning toward spending a couple days playing with an aegis
repository and the RT 2.1 codebase. The basic plan would be to leave the
2.0 branch in CVS, but to do new development in the new VCS. Has anyone
here worked with aegis?-j–
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
rt-devel mailing list
rt-devel@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel
Yeah. I’ve spent a bit of time with it. In time, I suspect it will be quite
cool, but it’s still not mature. It’s mostly written against posix.2, which
means that it doesn’t run so well on everything out there just yet, including
my MacOS X laptop, where I do most of RT’s development. And, while I’m not
in much of a position to talk, the fact that it’s tens of thousands of lines of /bin/bash still frightens me a bit
-jOn Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:48:25AM -0500, alex@paix.pilosoft.com wrote:
Jesse,
Have you looked at arch yet?
I haven’t had time to use it, but it seems to win quite a bit of mindshare
now…-alex
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Jesse Vincent wrote:Sorry this is so long.
That’s exactly what I needed. It’s more that aegis docs are a little hard
to deal with sometimes and it is a much more complex system than CVS with
a fairly different mindset, which requires some serious work to wrap one’s head
around fully. I guess the one thing that still doesn’t seem easy
is to provide anonymous read-only access to the live repository.Is the right thing there just to script aedist into a commit hook?
On the client side, I guess a small perl script that does a wget of the .ae
file and an aerecieve would mostly mimic “cvs update” against a remote
repository. Or could a script actually ssh to the aegis server and do an aedist
|aerecieve (on the local host) on demand?Is there a nice aegis webui somewhere?
Thanks,
JesseAnyway, these are just my rambling thoughts.
Others may have much more elegant solutions.I hope it helps answer a question or two or, more importantly, spurs a
question or two.Jesse, thanks again for RT.
Joshua Johnson
–On Friday, February 08, 2002 12:20:48 PM -0500 Jesse Vincent jesse@bestpractical.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:02:02AM +0200, Fabian Ritzmann wrote:
Two open-source systems you might want to consider:
Aegis: http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
- Mature, complete configuration management system. Unix only, but WWW
interface.nod I actually spent a bit of time with aegis a while ago and decided
that its manual was too obtuse and it was too process-bound. The fact
that it doesn’t have a way of allowing remote developers to interact with
a repository without local shell access also bothered me. But over the
past day or two, I’ve been re-familiarizing myself with the package and
think I see ways around most of my major issues with a little bit of
scripting.Subversion: http://subversion.tigris.org/
- Very interesting architecture, but still pre-alpha.
A friend of mine hacks on subversion. It looks very interesting, but still
isn’t quite ready for primetime and it doesn’t have one of the two
features that I really really want: the ability to do distributed
repositories cleanly, so I can work on a branch on my laptop (without
net) , checking in every time I hit a micro-milestone and then merge up
to the “main” repository when I finish.I’m currently leaning toward spending a couple days playing with an aegis
repository and the RT 2.1 codebase. The basic plan would be to leave the
2.0 branch in CVS, but to do new development in the new VCS. Has anyone
here worked with aegis?-j–
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.
rt-devel mailing list
rt-devel@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.