The popular and state-of-the-art distributed version control systems (DVCS) tools Git and Mercurial are very likely the best way of reliably organising software development. Both have numerous advantages over their predecessor Subversion (SVN).
In this article I will describe an attempt of converting an existing SVN repository into a hierarchy of nested Git, Mercurial or SVN repositories while satisfying special demands on the whole setup.
If you are just interested in the final solution, scroll down to the conclusion. But be warned …
Starting Point and Current Setup
The application called ug4 is a scientific algorithm suite for mathematical modelling and simulation of various problems from basic diffusion to coupled systems in fluid dynamics. It is written in C++ with heavy use of templated metaprogramming and an API enabling Lua-scripting and binding a Java-based GUI called VRL-Studio. It compiles fluently on Unix, OSX and Windows and runs on pretty much all computers from Netbooks to super computers with thousands of cores as JuQueen or HERMIT with a remarkable performance.
The current SVN repository consists of a core application with three main and deeply interoperating libraries and some glue-code. Beside this there are a few core and some experimental plugins. Finally there are numerous apps using the shared library build from the core, the three libraries and selected plugins.
Third-party libraries are included by the core and main libraries and might be added by certain plugins. For better usability and portability required third-party libraries are included as SVN Externals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Access rights are managed through a simple plaintext file setting branch and directory based read and write access on a per-user basis. Though this is not as flexible as we wish, it is the safest way of ensuring none of the code based developed in collaboration with industrial partners leaks into other parts of the repository.
With just a very few exceptions all developers are mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists. Only a few are trained and experienced in software development, while the rest is happy if a commit succeeds. For most group members resolving conflicts is a nightmare and impossible task and will likely be circumvented or ignored due to laziness. Adopting the basic SVN workflow of updating the working copy before making changes and committing those back is seen as an imposition by some group members. One group member already asked for having an email notification through a post-commit hook on the server when his project partner committed changes, so he does not forget to pull in these changes.
Desired End Point
Each and every of those listed here are show-stopping requirements. That means, if any of these is not fulfilled, the whole transition away from the current setup will not happen.
Fine-Grained Access Right Management
Number one requirement is to reliably preserve and ensure read and write access for each and every group member and external collaborators. This means, that there are some secret apps or plugins, which must only be readable by a few people. External collaborators usually have only read access to the core part and maybe write access to one app or plugin (differs from person to person). Temporary group members as students usually have write access to the core part and a few apps and plugins (differs from student to student) and read access to most other apps and plugins (also differs).
(Global) Changes Made Easy
Some of the core developers occasionally have to refactor and rename certain API functionality used by some apps and plugins. They used to change and fix all apps using these functions in one go, i.e. in one commit for all apps. Thus, recursive commits must be easily possible.
All commits and pushes of changes must be easily accomplished through Eclipse, as it is widely used in our group.
In principle most of the time all developers, collaborators and students only work on one app, maybe one or two plugins and rarely on the core and main libraries. For 90% of the collaborators, changes made in other apps and plugins are of zero interest as those apps and plugins will only be used by very few people. Thus it would be desirable not to have all apps and plugins checked out in the local working copy.
Easy and Time-Saving Maintenance
It must be possible to manage and maintain the whole setup easily. Thus, having a bunch of utility scripts just for handling the repository integrity is an absolute no-go.
As some high-performance computers have extremely modified operating systems with dated tools installed, having only a Mercurial or Git server might result in serious trouble when working on such machines. Subversion is always installed, though one will be lucky if the version reads 1.5 or higher.
As well, for the sake of usability and adoption inside our group, during the transition phase the current SVN repository must still be writeable and two-way synchronised with the new repository setup. A few month after the transition, the SVN server might become read-only to get rid of the frequent synchronisation and to force all developers to use the new repository.
Easy Branching For Mini-Group Collaboration
Due to the fact that some parts of the whole code base was developed in collaboration with industrial partners and is subject to restrictive licenses and access rights, SVN branches are deactivated for all developers. With branches enabled it would be possible to accidentally merge and commit those restricted code base into the main part, which would violate the licenses.
With separated repositories this branching for collaboratively experimenting with new features would be possible.
These are nice to have and are non-show-stopping. They can not compensate any of the aforementioned demands.
Automatic Checkouts Based on Compile Parameters
As we are already using CMake for managing the build process, with separated repositories for the different apps and plugins it would be desirable and nice to automate cloning and updating of the various repositories based on selected CMake parameters. That means, if an app or plugin requires some other additional app or plugin, CMake can check whether these dependencies are checked out and up to date.
Separated Version Histories
Up to now the revision history is a random mix of core, app and plugin changes. To read and visualize only the history of, say, core additional filter commands are required. With separated repositories, the history will also be separated.
How they work
Git Submodules are pointers on references of other Git repositories.
These Submodules are either managed by editing, adding and commiting a
.gitmodules file in the root directory of the parent repository or via the
git submodule (which edits and adds
The Good Part
With the help of Gitolite it is possible to easily manage and maintain all Git repositories and fine-grained user access rights. As well, setting up SSH keys as the only authentication method is fast to accomplish with Git and Gitolite. This would be a lot more secure than the current setup using plaintext passwords.
Using feature branches to collaboratively experiment with new functionality is one of the things Git is perfect at.
There are three experienced Git users in our group, which are happy to teach and train the rest of the group.
At no point during committing and pushing the existence (from the point of view of the server) of referenced subrepositories is checked. Thus, it is easily possible to commit a reference to a subrepository, which is only a local repository. When somebody else clones this repository from the server he will not be able to check out the referenced subrepository and will end up in a detached head. An absolute no-go!
Beside this, recursive adds, commits and pushes are off by default and have to be enabled by a command line parameter on each execution (or by defining an alias). As this requires client-side modifications and careful usage by all developers it is a no-go.
When they work
If all contributors are trained and experienced developers and advanced Git users. If not, sooner than later all collaborators will end up with more detached heads and inconsistent states than they can think of. And you have to fix them.
How they work
As with Git Submodules, Mercurial Subrepositories are pointers to certain states
of other Mercurial repositories.
These pointers are, similar to Git, managed by a dotfile (in this case
which has to be under version control.
The Good Part
In contrast to Git, Mercurial always makes sure that all commits of subrepositories referenced by the root repository are available on the server. Thus, at no time it will be possible to push changes of the root repository without also recursively pushing all changes of the subrepositories.
The most important Mercurial commands as
have a simple flag (
-S) to recursively trigger the same command in the
Thus, global changes in several apps and plugins can easily be committed by a single
command from the root repository.
With the extensions hgsubversion and convert the conversion from SVN to Mercurial and splitting up the whole repository into the desired hierarchy of subrepositories worked smoothly. Following the detailed instructions given in an article by Jason Hinch at Atlassian We could easily achieve the whole thing with a single Bash script, which is available in this Gist. Be warned: depending on the size of the project it might take a couple of hours to run.
Similar to Gitolite for Git there is mercurial-server for Mercurial offering almost the same functionality of managing repositories and user access rights.
There is no way of having Subrepositories without adding and committing the
Thus, local-only subrepositories for the various apps and experimental plugins
are impossible without any additional client-side scripts and hooks.
This is a no-go.
After conversion of the current SVN to a single Mercurial repository two-way synchronisation will work through post-commit hooks on both servers. As soon as the Mercurial repository is split up into a hierarchy of subrepositories there will be no way of synchronising from SVN to Mercurial or vice-versa. Thus, the transition will be a two-step process where the first is the transition to Mercurial leading to a complete shut-down of the SVN server and the second step will be the splitting into subrepositories. While the latter is a one-time hard cut transition. A no-go.
To hold it with two guys from Mercurial’s IRC channel on freenode:
nobody said subrepos made sense ;-)
subrepos are a Feature of Last Resort. By their very nature, they have to break
a number of things.
I’m adding, that this also holds true for Git Submodules.
When they work
Mercurial subrepositories would be perfect for the core part with the main libraries and external dependencies as Boost. The core part would always have a clean and consistent state and no undefined references can occur.
How they work
Similar to Git Submodules and Mercurial Subrepositories, SVN Externals are
pointers to certain revisions of other SVN repositories.
They either can be a floating reference onto the
HEAD revision or a fixed
reference onto a specific revision, say
The Good Part
Our current administrator does not need to learn any fancy new things. Nor does the others of the group.
Access rights can still be managed not only by repository, branch and tag but also by path, as Subversion allows partial commits and checkouts.
Recursive commits out of the root repository into all subrepositories as provided by Mercurial, is partially implemented in the current development snapshot of version 1.8 (see this comment on a Bug report. Without adding pre-commit hooks on the client side to automatically update the referenced revisions of the external subrepositories, it is hardly possible to achieve a clean state at all revisions of the root repository. Again, client-side hooks and commit scripts are a no-go.
When they work
They are a great way of including certain releases or snapshots of third-party libraries into a project. As we are doing it with METIS or Boost. In case your developers are randomly changing code in the base repository and included ones, a lot of care has to be taken on each and every commit. The must-have feature of easy usage is lost straight away. Adding client side pre-commit hooks is far off being reliable nor easy maintainable.
If you read that far and did not skip the previous three sections: Thank you for letting us share the pain with you, that obviously none of the popular version control systems are able to handle local-only subrepositories. You might already guess our final decision.
Yes, we stick with the current setup and did not changed anything.
We only created a Gitolite server mirroring SVN
trunk and SVN branches (both
read-only) for those group members eager on using a full Git workflow.
An additional Git “fetch repository” gets noticed of new SVN commits by a
post-commit hook on the SVN server which triggers a
git svn rebase on
and the SVN branches and force-pushes those SVN changes to the Git mirror.
The Git mirror also allows all group members to easily create and mess around
with feature and personal branches for the occasional on-the-road-hack.
Changes, which should go into the main development branch (i.e.
trunk) must be
committed directly to the SVN server via
git svn dcommit.
This way, we still comply with the tight access rights on the code base and must-have comfort functions while having partial support of the agile workflows provided by Git’s features. Everybody seems happy. Except the guys, who stand this adventure. They called in sick recovering from the pain endured that no usable version control system out there is capable of handling this use case in a maintainable manner.