Evolve with hg 2.8.2
Faheem Mitha
faheem at faheem.info
Tue Nov 11 12:22:02 UTC 2014
Hi Sebastian,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Sebastian Unger wrote:
> Thanks for responding Faheem.
> Unfortunately back-porting packages does not appear to be an option
> since none of the package archives I could find are recent enough:
> Ubuntu 14.10 has 3.1.1 and the official mercurial release PPA (as linked
> from their download site) has 3.0.1.
3.1.1 is the current version in Debian. The package has not yet been
updated to 3.2. You should use 3.2 once it comes out in Debian. Rebuilding
it on Ubuntu is trivial.
I think Javi Merino (who currently seems to be the sole active member of
the Debian Mercurial team) hasn't got around to it yet. Jordi just pinged
me on #mercurial as follows:
faheem_: Still no hg 3.2 in Debian. Think that Javi needs help?
I imagine that Jordi is subscribed to the evolve-testers list, but I am
CCing him anyway.
I tried resyncing the Debian patches against 3.1 for 3.2rc, but
experienced some problems, and dropped it. I'm not so familar with most of
those Debian patches, so didn't want to screw up.
Both Jordi and I would be willing to help Debian with packaging. (I
probably shouldn't speak for Jordi though.) I did once write (not long
ago) to Debian offering help, but got no reply.
> So that would leave me only with the option of building it myself. The
> thing is, I'm maintaining Ubuntu installations on about 45 desktops and
> servers and the only way I can manage that, is by trying to manage as
> little as possible myself. If I recompile locally, then I have to start
> monitoring the mercurial download page for new versions, find a place to
> be notified of security fixes, review those myself and decide when to
> deploy each of these changes. All of this is done for me by Canonical if
> I stick with the official Ubuntu version. Hence my reluctance at
> choosing this approach.
I can understand where you are coming from, but Mercurial releases are
regular and predictable, and there don't seem to be much by way of
security issues that I have noticed. I think you could just subscribe to
mercurial-announce to be notified of new releases. If you don't get around
to upgrading to some of the intermediate bug fix releases, it probably
isn't a big deal. The major releases are at 3 monthly intervals.
> Maybe I have to stick with using MQ instead of evolve until it is
> supported on stable and (distro-) supported versions of mercurial.
You could do that, but imo there is no reason not to at least test out
evolve if you want to.
Regards, Faheem
> Cheers,
> Seb
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Faheem Mitha <faheem at faheem.info> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Sebastian Unger wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>
>
> First of all: I have sent this before, but got no response, confirmation
> or other indication that my email had been received and I cannot see it
> in the archives. So I'm sending it again, now that I'm subscribed, in
> the believe that my previous email may have been dropped (maybe because
> I wasn't subscribed). If that was in fact not the case, then please
> accept my apologies.
>
>
> I'm a reasonably experienced HG + MQ user and have been keen to give
> Evolve a try. I'm also managing the 40 odd development desktops in my
> team. We are currently running Ubuntu 14.04 and will probably stick with
> that for a little while. This currently ships with mercurial version
> 2.8.2. If I follow the instructions for installing evolve, I get "Your
> Mercurial is too old for this version of Evolve".
>
>
> I have noticed that there is a branch in the evolve repo called
> mercurial-2.7 and if I update the extension to that branch, I do not get
> any immediate error messages.
>
>
> Here are my questions:
>
>
> 1. Is that branch up-to-date, i.e. does it have the same functionality
> as stable just for an older version of mercurial?
>
>
> 2. If so, are you going to keep it up-to-date for at least some time
> until later versions of mercurial are in more widespread use by
> distro's?
>
>
> 3. If not (to either one), what is the currently most stable and recommended combination of mercurial + evolve and how
> stable is it (compared to
> 2.8.2 without evolve)?
>
>
> 4. If I start using evolve and I find bugs/suggestions etc, where
> should I direct them?
>
>
> 5. What is the state of tortoisehg, if you know? The version shipped
> with Ubuntu 14.04 is 2.10. Does that support the evolve extension?
>
>
> And in general: From its documentation (having worked very intensively
> with MQ for 2 years or so) evolve looks like a dream come true! I really
> really would like to use it. ;-)
>
>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> I haven't seen your mail, and I'm subscribed, so I think this is your
> first message to the list.
>
> I general I would recommend staying with the most recent version of
> mercurial. In general it is not difficult to backport Mercurial Debian
> packages from more recent versions of Debian/Mercurial. Similar comments
> apply to tortoisehg.
>
> A local compile is also an option, of course.
>
> I don't think evolve is trying to stay backward compatible with earlier
> versions of mercurial. I think it is too difficult.
>
> Regards, Faheem
>
>
>
>
More information about the Evolve-testers
mailing list