| rev |
line source |
|
bos@553
|
1 <!-- vim: set filetype=docbkxml shiftwidth=2 autoindent expandtab tw=77 : -->
|
|
bos@553
|
2
|
|
dongsheng@625
|
3 <chapter id="chap.intro">
|
|
bos@572
|
4 <?dbhtml filename="introduction.html"?>
|
|
bos@553
|
5 <title>Introduction</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
6
|
|
bos@553
|
7 <sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
8 <title>About revision control</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
9
|
|
bos@553
|
10 <para>Revision control is the process of managing multiple
|
|
bos@553
|
11 versions of a piece of information. In its simplest form, this
|
|
bos@553
|
12 is something that many people do by hand: every time you modify
|
|
bos@553
|
13 a file, save it under a new name that contains a number, each
|
|
bos@553
|
14 one higher than the number of the preceding version.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
15
|
|
bos@553
|
16 <para>Manually managing multiple versions of even a single file is
|
|
bos@553
|
17 an error-prone task, though, so software tools to help automate
|
|
bos@553
|
18 this process have long been available. The earliest automated
|
|
bos@553
|
19 revision control tools were intended to help a single user to
|
|
bos@553
|
20 manage revisions of a single file. Over the past few decades,
|
|
bos@553
|
21 the scope of revision control tools has expanded greatly; they
|
|
bos@553
|
22 now manage multiple files, and help multiple people to work
|
|
bos@553
|
23 together. The best modern revision control tools have no
|
|
bos@553
|
24 problem coping with thousands of people working together on
|
|
bos@553
|
25 projects that consist of hundreds of thousands of files.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
26
|
|
bos@553
|
27 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
28 <title>Why use revision control?</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
29
|
|
bos@553
|
30 <para>There are a number of reasons why you or your team might
|
|
bos@553
|
31 want to use an automated revision control tool for a
|
|
bos@553
|
32 project.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
33 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
34 <listitem><para>It will track the history and evolution of
|
|
bos@553
|
35 your project, so you don't have to. For every change,
|
|
bos@553
|
36 you'll have a log of <emphasis>who</emphasis> made it;
|
|
bos@553
|
37 <emphasis>why</emphasis> they made it;
|
|
bos@553
|
38 <emphasis>when</emphasis> they made it; and
|
|
bos@553
|
39 <emphasis>what</emphasis> the change
|
|
bos@553
|
40 was.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
41 <listitem><para>When you're working with other people,
|
|
bos@553
|
42 revision control software makes it easier for you to
|
|
bos@553
|
43 collaborate. For example, when people more or less
|
|
bos@553
|
44 simultaneously make potentially incompatible changes, the
|
|
bos@553
|
45 software will help you to identify and resolve those
|
|
bos@553
|
46 conflicts.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
47 <listitem><para>It can help you to recover from mistakes. If
|
|
bos@553
|
48 you make a change that later turns out to be in error, you
|
|
bos@553
|
49 can revert to an earlier version of one or more files. In
|
|
bos@553
|
50 fact, a <emphasis>really</emphasis> good revision control
|
|
bos@553
|
51 tool will even help you to efficiently figure out exactly
|
|
bos@553
|
52 when a problem was introduced (see section <xref
|
|
dongsheng@625
|
53 linkend="sec.undo.bisect"/> for details).</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
54 <listitem><para>It will help you to work simultaneously on,
|
|
bos@553
|
55 and manage the drift between, multiple versions of your
|
|
bos@553
|
56 project.</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
57 <para>Most of these reasons are equally valid---at least in
|
|
bos@553
|
58 theory---whether you're working on a project by yourself, or
|
|
bos@553
|
59 with a hundred other people.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
60
|
|
bos@553
|
61 <para>A key question about the practicality of revision control
|
|
bos@553
|
62 at these two different scales (<quote>lone hacker</quote> and
|
|
bos@553
|
63 <quote>huge team</quote>) is how its
|
|
bos@553
|
64 <emphasis>benefits</emphasis> compare to its
|
|
bos@553
|
65 <emphasis>costs</emphasis>. A revision control tool that's
|
|
bos@553
|
66 difficult to understand or use is going to impose a high
|
|
bos@553
|
67 cost.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
68
|
|
bos@553
|
69 <para>A five-hundred-person project is likely to collapse under
|
|
bos@553
|
70 its own weight almost immediately without a revision control
|
|
bos@553
|
71 tool and process. In this case, the cost of using revision
|
|
bos@553
|
72 control might hardly seem worth considering, since
|
|
bos@553
|
73 <emphasis>without</emphasis> it, failure is almost
|
|
bos@553
|
74 guaranteed.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
75
|
|
bos@553
|
76 <para>On the other hand, a one-person <quote>quick hack</quote>
|
|
bos@553
|
77 might seem like a poor place to use a revision control tool,
|
|
bos@553
|
78 because surely the cost of using one must be close to the
|
|
bos@553
|
79 overall cost of the project. Right?</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
80
|
|
bos@553
|
81 <para>Mercurial uniquely supports <emphasis>both</emphasis> of
|
|
bos@553
|
82 these scales of development. You can learn the basics in just
|
|
bos@553
|
83 a few minutes, and due to its low overhead, you can apply
|
|
bos@553
|
84 revision control to the smallest of projects with ease. Its
|
|
bos@553
|
85 simplicity means you won't have a lot of abstruse concepts or
|
|
bos@553
|
86 command sequences competing for mental space with whatever
|
|
bos@553
|
87 you're <emphasis>really</emphasis> trying to do. At the same
|
|
bos@553
|
88 time, Mercurial's high performance and peer-to-peer nature let
|
|
bos@553
|
89 you scale painlessly to handle large projects.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
90
|
|
bos@553
|
91 <para>No revision control tool can rescue a poorly run project,
|
|
bos@553
|
92 but a good choice of tools can make a huge difference to the
|
|
bos@553
|
93 fluidity with which you can work on a project.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
94
|
|
bos@553
|
95 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
96 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
97 <title>The many names of revision control</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
98
|
|
bos@553
|
99 <para>Revision control is a diverse field, so much so that it
|
|
bos@553
|
100 doesn't actually have a single name or acronym. Here are a
|
|
bos@553
|
101 few of the more common names and acronyms you'll
|
|
bos@553
|
102 encounter:</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
103 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
104 <listitem><para>Revision control (RCS)</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
105 <listitem><para>Software configuration management (SCM), or
|
|
bos@553
|
106 configuration management</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
107 <listitem><para>Source code management</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
108 <listitem><para>Source code control, or source
|
|
bos@553
|
109 control</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
110 <listitem><para>Version control
|
|
bos@553
|
111 (VCS)</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
112 <para>Some people claim that these terms actually have different
|
|
bos@553
|
113 meanings, but in practice they overlap so much that there's no
|
|
bos@553
|
114 agreed or even useful way to tease them apart.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
115
|
|
bos@553
|
116 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
117 </sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
118 <sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
119 <title>A short history of revision control</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
120
|
|
bos@553
|
121 <para>The best known of the old-time revision control tools is
|
|
bos@553
|
122 SCCS (Source Code Control System), which Marc Rochkind wrote at
|
|
bos@553
|
123 Bell Labs, in the early 1970s. SCCS operated on individual
|
|
bos@553
|
124 files, and required every person working on a project to have
|
|
bos@553
|
125 access to a shared workspace on a single system. Only one
|
|
bos@553
|
126 person could modify a file at any time; arbitration for access
|
|
bos@553
|
127 to files was via locks. It was common for people to lock files,
|
|
bos@553
|
128 and later forget to unlock them, preventing anyone else from
|
|
bos@553
|
129 modifying those files without the help of an
|
|
bos@553
|
130 administrator.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
131
|
|
bos@553
|
132 <para>Walter Tichy developed a free alternative to SCCS in the
|
|
ori@561
|
133 early 1980s; he called his program RCS (Revision Control System).
|
|
bos@553
|
134 Like SCCS, RCS required developers to work in a single shared
|
|
bos@553
|
135 workspace, and to lock files to prevent multiple people from
|
|
bos@553
|
136 modifying them simultaneously.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
137
|
|
bos@553
|
138 <para>Later in the 1980s, Dick Grune used RCS as a building block
|
|
bos@553
|
139 for a set of shell scripts he initially called cmt, but then
|
|
bos@553
|
140 renamed to CVS (Concurrent Versions System). The big innovation
|
|
bos@553
|
141 of CVS was that it let developers work simultaneously and
|
|
bos@553
|
142 somewhat independently in their own personal workspaces. The
|
|
bos@553
|
143 personal workspaces prevented developers from stepping on each
|
|
bos@553
|
144 other's toes all the time, as was common with SCCS and RCS. Each
|
|
bos@553
|
145 developer had a copy of every project file, and could modify
|
|
bos@553
|
146 their copies independently. They had to merge their edits prior
|
|
bos@553
|
147 to committing changes to the central repository.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
148
|
|
bos@553
|
149 <para>Brian Berliner took Grune's original scripts and rewrote
|
|
bos@553
|
150 them in C, releasing in 1989 the code that has since developed
|
|
bos@553
|
151 into the modern version of CVS. CVS subsequently acquired the
|
|
bos@553
|
152 ability to operate over a network connection, giving it a
|
|
bos@553
|
153 client/server architecture. CVS's architecture is centralised;
|
|
bos@553
|
154 only the server has a copy of the history of the project. Client
|
|
bos@553
|
155 workspaces just contain copies of recent versions of the
|
|
bos@553
|
156 project's files, and a little metadata to tell them where the
|
|
bos@553
|
157 server is. CVS has been enormously successful; it is probably
|
|
bos@553
|
158 the world's most widely used revision control system.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
159
|
|
bos@553
|
160 <para>In the early 1990s, Sun Microsystems developed an early
|
|
bos@553
|
161 distributed revision control system, called TeamWare. A
|
|
bos@553
|
162 TeamWare workspace contains a complete copy of the project's
|
|
bos@553
|
163 history. TeamWare has no notion of a central repository. (CVS
|
|
bos@553
|
164 relied upon RCS for its history storage; TeamWare used
|
|
bos@553
|
165 SCCS.)</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
166
|
|
bos@553
|
167 <para>As the 1990s progressed, awareness grew of a number of
|
|
bos@553
|
168 problems with CVS. It records simultaneous changes to multiple
|
|
bos@553
|
169 files individually, instead of grouping them together as a
|
|
bos@553
|
170 single logically atomic operation. It does not manage its file
|
|
bos@553
|
171 hierarchy well; it is easy to make a mess of a repository by
|
|
bos@553
|
172 renaming files and directories. Worse, its source code is
|
|
bos@553
|
173 difficult to read and maintain, which made the <quote>pain
|
|
bos@553
|
174 level</quote> of fixing these architectural problems
|
|
bos@553
|
175 prohibitive.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
176
|
|
bos@553
|
177 <para>In 2001, Jim Blandy and Karl Fogel, two developers who had
|
|
bos@553
|
178 worked on CVS, started a project to replace it with a tool that
|
|
bos@553
|
179 would have a better architecture and cleaner code. The result,
|
|
bos@553
|
180 Subversion, does not stray from CVS's centralised client/server
|
|
bos@553
|
181 model, but it adds multi-file atomic commits, better namespace
|
|
bos@553
|
182 management, and a number of other features that make it a
|
|
bos@553
|
183 generally better tool than CVS. Since its initial release, it
|
|
bos@553
|
184 has rapidly grown in popularity.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
185
|
|
bos@553
|
186 <para>More or less simultaneously, Graydon Hoare began working on
|
|
bos@553
|
187 an ambitious distributed revision control system that he named
|
|
bos@553
|
188 Monotone. While Monotone addresses many of CVS's design flaws
|
|
bos@553
|
189 and has a peer-to-peer architecture, it goes beyond earlier (and
|
|
bos@553
|
190 subsequent) revision control tools in a number of innovative
|
|
bos@553
|
191 ways. It uses cryptographic hashes as identifiers, and has an
|
|
bos@553
|
192 integral notion of <quote>trust</quote> for code from different
|
|
bos@553
|
193 sources.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
194
|
|
bos@553
|
195 <para>Mercurial began life in 2005. While a few aspects of its
|
|
bos@553
|
196 design are influenced by Monotone, Mercurial focuses on ease of
|
|
bos@553
|
197 use, high performance, and scalability to very large
|
|
bos@553
|
198 projects.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
199
|
|
bos@553
|
200 </sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
201 <sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
202 <title>Trends in revision control</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
203
|
|
bos@553
|
204 <para>There has been an unmistakable trend in the development and
|
|
bos@553
|
205 use of revision control tools over the past four decades, as
|
|
bos@553
|
206 people have become familiar with the capabilities of their tools
|
|
bos@553
|
207 and constrained by their limitations.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
208
|
|
bos@553
|
209 <para>The first generation began by managing single files on
|
|
bos@553
|
210 individual computers. Although these tools represented a huge
|
|
bos@553
|
211 advance over ad-hoc manual revision control, their locking model
|
|
bos@553
|
212 and reliance on a single computer limited them to small,
|
|
bos@553
|
213 tightly-knit teams.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
214
|
|
bos@553
|
215 <para>The second generation loosened these constraints by moving
|
|
bos@553
|
216 to network-centered architectures, and managing entire projects
|
|
bos@553
|
217 at a time. As projects grew larger, they ran into new problems.
|
|
bos@553
|
218 With clients needing to talk to servers very frequently, server
|
|
bos@553
|
219 scaling became an issue for large projects. An unreliable
|
|
bos@553
|
220 network connection could prevent remote users from being able to
|
|
bos@553
|
221 talk to the server at all. As open source projects started
|
|
bos@553
|
222 making read-only access available anonymously to anyone, people
|
|
bos@553
|
223 without commit privileges found that they could not use the
|
|
bos@553
|
224 tools to interact with a project in a natural way, as they could
|
|
bos@553
|
225 not record their changes.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
226
|
|
bos@553
|
227 <para>The current generation of revision control tools is
|
|
bos@553
|
228 peer-to-peer in nature. All of these systems have dropped the
|
|
bos@553
|
229 dependency on a single central server, and allow people to
|
|
bos@553
|
230 distribute their revision control data to where it's actually
|
|
bos@553
|
231 needed. Collaboration over the Internet has moved from
|
|
bos@553
|
232 constrained by technology to a matter of choice and consensus.
|
|
bos@553
|
233 Modern tools can operate offline indefinitely and autonomously,
|
|
bos@553
|
234 with a network connection only needed when syncing changes with
|
|
bos@553
|
235 another repository.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
236
|
|
bos@553
|
237 </sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
238 <sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
239 <title>A few of the advantages of distributed revision
|
|
bos@553
|
240 control</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
241
|
|
bos@553
|
242 <para>Even though distributed revision control tools have for
|
|
bos@553
|
243 several years been as robust and usable as their
|
|
bos@553
|
244 previous-generation counterparts, people using older tools have
|
|
bos@553
|
245 not yet necessarily woken up to their advantages. There are a
|
|
bos@553
|
246 number of ways in which distributed tools shine relative to
|
|
bos@553
|
247 centralised ones.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
248
|
|
bos@553
|
249 <para>For an individual developer, distributed tools are almost
|
|
bos@553
|
250 always much faster than centralised tools. This is for a simple
|
|
bos@553
|
251 reason: a centralised tool needs to talk over the network for
|
|
bos@553
|
252 many common operations, because most metadata is stored in a
|
|
bos@553
|
253 single copy on the central server. A distributed tool stores
|
|
bos@553
|
254 all of its metadata locally. All else being equal, talking over
|
|
bos@553
|
255 the network adds overhead to a centralised tool. Don't
|
|
bos@553
|
256 underestimate the value of a snappy, responsive tool: you're
|
|
bos@553
|
257 going to spend a lot of time interacting with your revision
|
|
bos@553
|
258 control software.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
259
|
|
bos@553
|
260 <para>Distributed tools are indifferent to the vagaries of your
|
|
bos@553
|
261 server infrastructure, again because they replicate metadata to
|
|
bos@553
|
262 so many locations. If you use a centralised system and your
|
|
bos@553
|
263 server catches fire, you'd better hope that your backup media
|
|
bos@553
|
264 are reliable, and that your last backup was recent and actually
|
|
bos@553
|
265 worked. With a distributed tool, you have many backups
|
|
bos@553
|
266 available on every contributor's computer.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
267
|
|
bos@553
|
268 <para>The reliability of your network will affect distributed
|
|
bos@553
|
269 tools far less than it will centralised tools. You can't even
|
|
bos@553
|
270 use a centralised tool without a network connection, except for
|
|
bos@553
|
271 a few highly constrained commands. With a distributed tool, if
|
|
bos@553
|
272 your network connection goes down while you're working, you may
|
|
bos@553
|
273 not even notice. The only thing you won't be able to do is talk
|
|
bos@553
|
274 to repositories on other computers, something that is relatively
|
|
bos@553
|
275 rare compared with local operations. If you have a far-flung
|
|
bos@553
|
276 team of collaborators, this may be significant.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
277
|
|
bos@553
|
278 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
279 <title>Advantages for open source projects</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
280
|
|
bos@553
|
281 <para>If you take a shine to an open source project and decide
|
|
bos@553
|
282 that you would like to start hacking on it, and that project
|
|
bos@553
|
283 uses a distributed revision control tool, you are at once a
|
|
bos@553
|
284 peer with the people who consider themselves the
|
|
bos@553
|
285 <quote>core</quote> of that project. If they publish their
|
|
bos@553
|
286 repositories, you can immediately copy their project history,
|
|
bos@553
|
287 start making changes, and record your work, using the same
|
|
bos@553
|
288 tools in the same ways as insiders. By contrast, with a
|
|
bos@553
|
289 centralised tool, you must use the software in a <quote>read
|
|
bos@553
|
290 only</quote> mode unless someone grants you permission to
|
|
bos@553
|
291 commit changes to their central server. Until then, you won't
|
|
bos@553
|
292 be able to record changes, and your local modifications will
|
|
bos@553
|
293 be at risk of corruption any time you try to update your
|
|
bos@553
|
294 client's view of the repository.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
295
|
|
bos@553
|
296 <sect3>
|
|
bos@553
|
297 <title>The forking non-problem</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
298
|
|
bos@553
|
299 <para>It has been suggested that distributed revision control
|
|
bos@553
|
300 tools pose some sort of risk to open source projects because
|
|
bos@553
|
301 they make it easy to <quote>fork</quote> the development of
|
|
bos@553
|
302 a project. A fork happens when there are differences in
|
|
bos@553
|
303 opinion or attitude between groups of developers that cause
|
|
bos@553
|
304 them to decide that they can't work together any longer.
|
|
bos@553
|
305 Each side takes a more or less complete copy of the
|
|
bos@553
|
306 project's source code, and goes off in its own
|
|
bos@553
|
307 direction.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
308
|
|
bos@553
|
309 <para>Sometimes the camps in a fork decide to reconcile their
|
|
bos@553
|
310 differences. With a centralised revision control system, the
|
|
bos@553
|
311 <emphasis>technical</emphasis> process of reconciliation is
|
|
bos@553
|
312 painful, and has to be performed largely by hand. You have
|
|
bos@553
|
313 to decide whose revision history is going to
|
|
bos@553
|
314 <quote>win</quote>, and graft the other team's changes into
|
|
bos@553
|
315 the tree somehow. This usually loses some or all of one
|
|
bos@553
|
316 side's revision history.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
317
|
|
bos@553
|
318 <para>What distributed tools do with respect to forking is
|
|
bos@553
|
319 they make forking the <emphasis>only</emphasis> way to
|
|
bos@553
|
320 develop a project. Every single change that you make is
|
|
bos@553
|
321 potentially a fork point. The great strength of this
|
|
bos@553
|
322 approach is that a distributed revision control tool has to
|
|
bos@553
|
323 be really good at <emphasis>merging</emphasis> forks,
|
|
bos@553
|
324 because forks are absolutely fundamental: they happen all
|
|
bos@553
|
325 the time.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
326
|
|
bos@553
|
327 <para>If every piece of work that everybody does, all the
|
|
bos@553
|
328 time, is framed in terms of forking and merging, then what
|
|
bos@553
|
329 the open source world refers to as a <quote>fork</quote>
|
|
bos@553
|
330 becomes <emphasis>purely</emphasis> a social issue. If
|
|
bos@553
|
331 anything, distributed tools <emphasis>lower</emphasis> the
|
|
bos@553
|
332 likelihood of a fork:</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
333 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
334 <listitem><para>They eliminate the social distinction that
|
|
bos@553
|
335 centralised tools impose: that between insiders (people
|
|
bos@553
|
336 with commit access) and outsiders (people
|
|
bos@553
|
337 without).</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
338 <listitem><para>They make it easier to reconcile after a
|
|
bos@553
|
339 social fork, because all that's involved from the
|
|
bos@553
|
340 perspective of the revision control software is just
|
|
bos@553
|
341 another merge.</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
342
|
|
bos@553
|
343 <para>Some people resist distributed tools because they want
|
|
bos@553
|
344 to retain tight control over their projects, and they
|
|
bos@553
|
345 believe that centralised tools give them this control.
|
|
bos@553
|
346 However, if you're of this belief, and you publish your CVS
|
|
ori@561
|
347 or Subversion repositories publicly, there are plenty of
|
|
bos@553
|
348 tools available that can pull out your entire project's
|
|
bos@553
|
349 history (albeit slowly) and recreate it somewhere that you
|
|
bos@553
|
350 don't control. So while your control in this case is
|
|
bos@553
|
351 illusory, you are forgoing the ability to fluidly
|
|
bos@553
|
352 collaborate with whatever people feel compelled to mirror
|
|
bos@553
|
353 and fork your history.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
354
|
|
bos@553
|
355 </sect3>
|
|
bos@553
|
356 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
357 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
358 <title>Advantages for commercial projects</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
359
|
|
bos@553
|
360 <para>Many commercial projects are undertaken by teams that are
|
|
bos@553
|
361 scattered across the globe. Contributors who are far from a
|
|
bos@553
|
362 central server will see slower command execution and perhaps
|
|
bos@553
|
363 less reliability. Commercial revision control systems attempt
|
|
bos@553
|
364 to ameliorate these problems with remote-site replication
|
|
bos@553
|
365 add-ons that are typically expensive to buy and cantankerous
|
|
bos@553
|
366 to administer. A distributed system doesn't suffer from these
|
|
bos@553
|
367 problems in the first place. Better yet, you can easily set
|
|
bos@553
|
368 up multiple authoritative servers, say one per site, so that
|
|
bos@553
|
369 there's no redundant communication between repositories over
|
|
bos@553
|
370 expensive long-haul network links.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
371
|
|
bos@553
|
372 <para>Centralised revision control systems tend to have
|
|
bos@553
|
373 relatively low scalability. It's not unusual for an expensive
|
|
bos@553
|
374 centralised system to fall over under the combined load of
|
|
bos@553
|
375 just a few dozen concurrent users. Once again, the typical
|
|
bos@553
|
376 response tends to be an expensive and clunky replication
|
|
bos@553
|
377 facility. Since the load on a central server---if you have
|
|
bos@553
|
378 one at all---is many times lower with a distributed tool
|
|
bos@553
|
379 (because all of the data is replicated everywhere), a single
|
|
bos@553
|
380 cheap server can handle the needs of a much larger team, and
|
|
bos@553
|
381 replication to balance load becomes a simple matter of
|
|
bos@553
|
382 scripting.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
383
|
|
bos@553
|
384 <para>If you have an employee in the field, troubleshooting a
|
|
bos@553
|
385 problem at a customer's site, they'll benefit from distributed
|
|
bos@553
|
386 revision control. The tool will let them generate custom
|
|
bos@553
|
387 builds, try different fixes in isolation from each other, and
|
|
bos@553
|
388 search efficiently through history for the sources of bugs and
|
|
bos@553
|
389 regressions in the customer's environment, all without needing
|
|
bos@553
|
390 to connect to your company's network.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
391
|
|
bos@553
|
392 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
393 </sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
394 <sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
395 <title>Why choose Mercurial?</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
396
|
|
bos@553
|
397 <para>Mercurial has a unique set of properties that make it a
|
|
bos@553
|
398 particularly good choice as a revision control system.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
399 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
400 <listitem><para>It is easy to learn and use.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
401 <listitem><para>It is lightweight.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
402 <listitem><para>It scales excellently.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
403 <listitem><para>It is easy to
|
|
bos@553
|
404 customise.</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
405
|
|
bos@553
|
406 <para>If you are at all familiar with revision control systems,
|
|
bos@553
|
407 you should be able to get up and running with Mercurial in less
|
|
bos@553
|
408 than five minutes. Even if not, it will take no more than a few
|
|
bos@553
|
409 minutes longer. Mercurial's command and feature sets are
|
|
bos@553
|
410 generally uniform and consistent, so you can keep track of a few
|
|
bos@553
|
411 general rules instead of a host of exceptions.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
412
|
|
bos@553
|
413 <para>On a small project, you can start working with Mercurial in
|
|
bos@553
|
414 moments. Creating new changes and branches; transferring changes
|
|
bos@553
|
415 around (whether locally or over a network); and history and
|
|
bos@553
|
416 status operations are all fast. Mercurial attempts to stay
|
|
bos@553
|
417 nimble and largely out of your way by combining low cognitive
|
|
bos@553
|
418 overhead with blazingly fast operations.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
419
|
|
bos@553
|
420 <para>The usefulness of Mercurial is not limited to small
|
|
bos@553
|
421 projects: it is used by projects with hundreds to thousands of
|
|
bos@553
|
422 contributors, each containing tens of thousands of files and
|
|
bos@553
|
423 hundreds of megabytes of source code.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
424
|
|
bos@553
|
425 <para>If the core functionality of Mercurial is not enough for
|
|
bos@553
|
426 you, it's easy to build on. Mercurial is well suited to
|
|
bos@553
|
427 scripting tasks, and its clean internals and implementation in
|
|
bos@553
|
428 Python make it easy to add features in the form of extensions.
|
|
bos@553
|
429 There are a number of popular and useful extensions already
|
|
bos@553
|
430 available, ranging from helping to identify bugs to improving
|
|
bos@553
|
431 performance.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
432
|
|
bos@553
|
433 </sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
434 <sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
435 <title>Mercurial compared with other tools</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
436
|
|
bos@553
|
437 <para>Before you read on, please understand that this section
|
|
bos@553
|
438 necessarily reflects my own experiences, interests, and (dare I
|
|
bos@553
|
439 say it) biases. I have used every one of the revision control
|
|
bos@553
|
440 tools listed below, in most cases for several years at a
|
|
bos@553
|
441 time.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
442
|
|
bos@553
|
443
|
|
bos@553
|
444 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
445 <title>Subversion</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
446
|
|
bos@553
|
447 <para>Subversion is a popular revision control tool, developed
|
|
bos@553
|
448 to replace CVS. It has a centralised client/server
|
|
bos@553
|
449 architecture.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
450
|
|
bos@553
|
451 <para>Subversion and Mercurial have similarly named commands for
|
|
bos@553
|
452 performing the same operations, so if you're familiar with
|
|
bos@553
|
453 one, it is easy to learn to use the other. Both tools are
|
|
bos@553
|
454 portable to all popular operating systems.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
455
|
|
bos@553
|
456 <para>Prior to version 1.5, Subversion had no useful support for
|
|
bos@553
|
457 merges. At the time of writing, its merge tracking capability
|
|
bos@553
|
458 is new, and known to be <ulink
|
|
bos@553
|
459 url="http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.finalword">complicated
|
|
bos@553
|
460 and buggy</ulink>.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
461
|
|
bos@553
|
462 <para>Mercurial has a substantial performance advantage over
|
|
bos@553
|
463 Subversion on every revision control operation I have
|
|
bos@553
|
464 benchmarked. I have measured its advantage as ranging from a
|
|
bos@553
|
465 factor of two to a factor of six when compared with Subversion
|
|
bos@553
|
466 1.4.3's <emphasis>ra_local</emphasis> file store, which is the
|
|
bos@553
|
467 fastest access method available. In more realistic
|
|
bos@553
|
468 deployments involving a network-based store, Subversion will
|
|
bos@553
|
469 be at a substantially larger disadvantage. Because many
|
|
bos@553
|
470 Subversion commands must talk to the server and Subversion
|
|
bos@553
|
471 does not have useful replication facilities, server capacity
|
|
bos@553
|
472 and network bandwidth become bottlenecks for modestly large
|
|
bos@553
|
473 projects.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
474
|
|
bos@553
|
475 <para>Additionally, Subversion incurs substantial storage
|
|
bos@553
|
476 overhead to avoid network transactions for a few common
|
|
bos@553
|
477 operations, such as finding modified files
|
|
bos@553
|
478 (<literal>status</literal>) and displaying modifications
|
|
bos@553
|
479 against the current revision (<literal>diff</literal>). As a
|
|
bos@553
|
480 result, a Subversion working copy is often the same size as,
|
|
bos@553
|
481 or larger than, a Mercurial repository and working directory,
|
|
bos@553
|
482 even though the Mercurial repository contains a complete
|
|
bos@553
|
483 history of the project.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
484
|
|
bos@553
|
485 <para>Subversion is widely supported by third party tools.
|
|
bos@553
|
486 Mercurial currently lags considerably in this area. This gap
|
|
bos@553
|
487 is closing, however, and indeed some of Mercurial's GUI tools
|
|
bos@553
|
488 now outshine their Subversion equivalents. Like Mercurial,
|
|
bos@553
|
489 Subversion has an excellent user manual.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
490
|
|
bos@553
|
491 <para>Because Subversion doesn't store revision history on the
|
|
bos@553
|
492 client, it is well suited to managing projects that deal with
|
|
bos@553
|
493 lots of large, opaque binary files. If you check in fifty
|
|
bos@553
|
494 revisions to an incompressible 10MB file, Subversion's
|
|
bos@553
|
495 client-side space usage stays constant The space used by any
|
|
bos@553
|
496 distributed SCM will grow rapidly in proportion to the number
|
|
bos@553
|
497 of revisions, because the differences between each revision
|
|
bos@553
|
498 are large.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
499
|
|
bos@553
|
500 <para>In addition, it's often difficult or, more usually,
|
|
bos@553
|
501 impossible to merge different versions of a binary file.
|
|
bos@553
|
502 Subversion's ability to let a user lock a file, so that they
|
|
bos@553
|
503 temporarily have the exclusive right to commit changes to it,
|
|
bos@553
|
504 can be a significant advantage to a project where binary files
|
|
bos@553
|
505 are widely used.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
506
|
|
bos@553
|
507 <para>Mercurial can import revision history from a Subversion
|
|
bos@553
|
508 repository. It can also export revision history to a
|
|
bos@553
|
509 Subversion repository. This makes it easy to <quote>test the
|
|
bos@553
|
510 waters</quote> and use Mercurial and Subversion in parallel
|
|
bos@553
|
511 before deciding to switch. History conversion is incremental,
|
|
bos@553
|
512 so you can perform an initial conversion, then small
|
|
bos@553
|
513 additional conversions afterwards to bring in new
|
|
bos@553
|
514 changes.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
515
|
|
bos@553
|
516
|
|
bos@553
|
517 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
518 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
519 <title>Git</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
520
|
|
bos@553
|
521 <para>Git is a distributed revision control tool that was
|
|
bos@553
|
522 developed for managing the Linux kernel source tree. Like
|
|
bos@553
|
523 Mercurial, its early design was somewhat influenced by
|
|
bos@553
|
524 Monotone.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
525
|
|
bos@553
|
526 <para>Git has a very large command set, with version 1.5.0
|
|
bos@553
|
527 providing 139 individual commands. It has something of a
|
|
bos@553
|
528 reputation for being difficult to learn. Compared to Git,
|
|
bos@553
|
529 Mercurial has a strong focus on simplicity.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
530
|
|
bos@553
|
531 <para>In terms of performance, Git is extremely fast. In
|
|
bos@553
|
532 several cases, it is faster than Mercurial, at least on Linux,
|
|
bos@553
|
533 while Mercurial performs better on other operations. However,
|
|
bos@553
|
534 on Windows, the performance and general level of support that
|
|
bos@553
|
535 Git provides is, at the time of writing, far behind that of
|
|
bos@553
|
536 Mercurial.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
537
|
|
bos@553
|
538 <para>While a Mercurial repository needs no maintenance, a Git
|
|
bos@553
|
539 repository requires frequent manual <quote>repacks</quote> of
|
|
bos@553
|
540 its metadata. Without these, performance degrades, while
|
|
bos@553
|
541 space usage grows rapidly. A server that contains many Git
|
|
bos@553
|
542 repositories that are not rigorously and frequently repacked
|
|
bos@553
|
543 will become heavily disk-bound during backups, and there have
|
|
bos@553
|
544 been instances of daily backups taking far longer than 24
|
|
bos@553
|
545 hours as a result. A freshly packed Git repository is
|
|
bos@553
|
546 slightly smaller than a Mercurial repository, but an unpacked
|
|
bos@553
|
547 repository is several orders of magnitude larger.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
548
|
|
bos@553
|
549 <para>The core of Git is written in C. Many Git commands are
|
|
bos@553
|
550 implemented as shell or Perl scripts, and the quality of these
|
|
bos@553
|
551 scripts varies widely. I have encountered several instances
|
|
bos@553
|
552 where scripts charged along blindly in the presence of errors
|
|
bos@553
|
553 that should have been fatal.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
554
|
|
bos@553
|
555 <para>Mercurial can import revision history from a Git
|
|
bos@553
|
556 repository.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
557
|
|
bos@553
|
558
|
|
bos@553
|
559 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
560 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
561 <title>CVS</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
562
|
|
bos@553
|
563 <para>CVS is probably the most widely used revision control tool
|
|
bos@553
|
564 in the world. Due to its age and internal untidiness, it has
|
|
bos@553
|
565 been only lightly maintained for many years.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
566
|
|
bos@553
|
567 <para>It has a centralised client/server architecture. It does
|
|
bos@553
|
568 not group related file changes into atomic commits, making it
|
|
bos@553
|
569 easy for people to <quote>break the build</quote>: one person
|
|
bos@553
|
570 can successfully commit part of a change and then be blocked
|
|
bos@553
|
571 by the need for a merge, causing other people to see only a
|
|
bos@553
|
572 portion of the work they intended to do. This also affects
|
|
bos@553
|
573 how you work with project history. If you want to see all of
|
|
bos@553
|
574 the modifications someone made as part of a task, you will
|
|
bos@553
|
575 need to manually inspect the descriptions and timestamps of
|
|
bos@553
|
576 the changes made to each file involved (if you even know what
|
|
bos@553
|
577 those files were).</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
578
|
|
bos@553
|
579 <para>CVS has a muddled notion of tags and branches that I will
|
|
bos@553
|
580 not attempt to even describe. It does not support renaming of
|
|
bos@553
|
581 files or directories well, making it easy to corrupt a
|
|
bos@553
|
582 repository. It has almost no internal consistency checking
|
|
bos@553
|
583 capabilities, so it is usually not even possible to tell
|
|
bos@553
|
584 whether or how a repository is corrupt. I would not recommend
|
|
bos@553
|
585 CVS for any project, existing or new.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
586
|
|
bos@553
|
587 <para>Mercurial can import CVS revision history. However, there
|
|
bos@553
|
588 are a few caveats that apply; these are true of every other
|
|
bos@553
|
589 revision control tool's CVS importer, too. Due to CVS's lack
|
|
bos@553
|
590 of atomic changes and unversioned filesystem hierarchy, it is
|
|
bos@553
|
591 not possible to reconstruct CVS history completely accurately;
|
|
bos@553
|
592 some guesswork is involved, and renames will usually not show
|
|
bos@553
|
593 up. Because a lot of advanced CVS administration has to be
|
|
bos@553
|
594 done by hand and is hence error-prone, it's common for CVS
|
|
bos@553
|
595 importers to run into multiple problems with corrupted
|
|
bos@553
|
596 repositories (completely bogus revision timestamps and files
|
|
bos@553
|
597 that have remained locked for over a decade are just two of
|
|
bos@553
|
598 the less interesting problems I can recall from personal
|
|
bos@553
|
599 experience).</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
600
|
|
bos@553
|
601 <para>Mercurial can import revision history from a CVS
|
|
bos@553
|
602 repository.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
603
|
|
bos@553
|
604
|
|
bos@553
|
605 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
606 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
607 <title>Commercial tools</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
608
|
|
bos@553
|
609 <para>Perforce has a centralised client/server architecture,
|
|
bos@553
|
610 with no client-side caching of any data. Unlike modern
|
|
bos@553
|
611 revision control tools, Perforce requires that a user run a
|
|
bos@553
|
612 command to inform the server about every file they intend to
|
|
bos@553
|
613 edit.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
614
|
|
bos@553
|
615 <para>The performance of Perforce is quite good for small teams,
|
|
bos@553
|
616 but it falls off rapidly as the number of users grows beyond a
|
|
bos@553
|
617 few dozen. Modestly large Perforce installations require the
|
|
bos@553
|
618 deployment of proxies to cope with the load their users
|
|
bos@553
|
619 generate.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
620
|
|
bos@553
|
621
|
|
bos@553
|
622 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
623 <sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
624 <title>Choosing a revision control tool</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
625
|
|
bos@553
|
626 <para>With the exception of CVS, all of the tools listed above
|
|
bos@553
|
627 have unique strengths that suit them to particular styles of
|
|
bos@553
|
628 work. There is no single revision control tool that is best
|
|
bos@553
|
629 in all situations.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
630
|
|
bos@553
|
631 <para>As an example, Subversion is a good choice for working
|
|
bos@553
|
632 with frequently edited binary files, due to its centralised
|
|
bos@553
|
633 nature and support for file locking.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
634
|
|
bos@553
|
635 <para>I personally find Mercurial's properties of simplicity,
|
|
bos@553
|
636 performance, and good merge support to be a compelling
|
|
bos@553
|
637 combination that has served me well for several years.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
638
|
|
bos@553
|
639
|
|
bos@553
|
640 </sect2>
|
|
bos@553
|
641 </sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
642 <sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
643 <title>Switching from another tool to Mercurial</title>
|
|
bos@553
|
644
|
|
bos@553
|
645 <para>Mercurial is bundled with an extension named <literal
|
|
bos@553
|
646 role="hg-ext">convert</literal>, which can incrementally
|
|
bos@553
|
647 import revision history from several other revision control
|
|
bos@553
|
648 tools. By <quote>incremental</quote>, I mean that you can
|
|
bos@553
|
649 convert all of a project's history to date in one go, then rerun
|
|
bos@553
|
650 the conversion later to obtain new changes that happened after
|
|
bos@553
|
651 the initial conversion.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
652
|
|
bos@553
|
653 <para>The revision control tools supported by <literal
|
|
bos@553
|
654 role="hg-ext">convert</literal> are as follows:</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
655 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
656 <listitem><para>Subversion</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
657 <listitem><para>CVS</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
658 <listitem><para>Git</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@553
|
659 <listitem><para>Darcs</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@553
|
660
|
|
bos@553
|
661 <para>In addition, <literal role="hg-ext">convert</literal> can
|
|
bos@553
|
662 export changes from Mercurial to Subversion. This makes it
|
|
bos@553
|
663 possible to try Subversion and Mercurial in parallel before
|
|
bos@553
|
664 committing to a switchover, without risking the loss of any
|
|
bos@553
|
665 work.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
666
|
|
bos@553
|
667 <para>The <command role="hg-ext-conver">convert</command> command
|
|
bos@553
|
668 is easy to use. Simply point it at the path or URL of the
|
|
bos@553
|
669 source repository, optionally give it the name of the
|
|
bos@553
|
670 destination repository, and it will start working. After the
|
|
bos@553
|
671 initial conversion, just run the same command again to import
|
|
bos@553
|
672 new changes.</para>
|
|
bos@553
|
673 </sect1>
|
|
bos@553
|
674 </chapter>
|
|
bos@553
|
675
|
|
bos@553
|
676 <!--
|
|
bos@553
|
677 local variables:
|
|
bos@553
|
678 sgml-parent-document: ("00book.xml" "book" "chapter")
|
|
bos@553
|
679 end:
|
|
bos@553
|
680 -->
|
