This is not a description of centralized vs. distributed VCSs, and it does not intend to be one. This does not intend to compare Monotone to Git either, although you'll probably feel like it while reading the text. Note that I have fully known the advantages of DVCSs over centralized systems for many years, but for some reason or another I have been "forced" to use centralized systems on and off. The Subversion hiccup explained below is... well... regrettable, but it's all part of the story!
Hope you enjoy the read.
Looking back at Monotone (and ATF)
I still remember the moment I discovered Monotone in 2004: simply put, it blew my mind. It was clear to me that Distributed Version Control Systems (DVCSs) were going to be the future, and I eagerly adopted Monotone for my own projects. A year later, Git appeared and it took all the praise for DVCSs: developers all around started migrating en masse to Git, leaving behind other (D)VCSs. Many of these developers then went on to make Git usable (it certainly wasn't at first) and well-documented. (Note: I really dislike Git's origins... but I won't get into details; it has been many years since that happened.)
One of the projects in which I chose to use Monotone was ATF. That might have been a good choice at the time despite being very biased, but it has caused problems over time. These have been:
- Difficulty to get Monotone installed: While most Linux distributions come with a Monotone binary package these days, it was not the case years ago. But even nowadays if all Linux distributions have binary packages, the main consumers of ATF are NetBSD users, and their only choice is to build their own binaries. This generates discomfort because there is a lot of FUD surrounding C++ and Boost.
- High entry barrier to potential contributors: It is a fact that Monotone is not popular, which means that nobody is familiar with it. Monotone's CLI is very similar to CVS, and I'd say the knowledge transition for basic usage is trivial, but the process of cloning a remote project was really convoluted until "recently". The lack of binary packages, combined with complex instructions on just how to fetch the sources of a project only help in scaring people away.
- Missing features: Despite years have passed, Monotone still lacks some important features that impact its usability. For example, to my knowledge, it's still not possible to do work-directory merges and, while the interactive merges offered by the tool seem like a cool idea, they are not really practical as you get no chance to validate the merge. It is also not possible, for example, to reference the parent commit of any given commit without looking at the parent's ID. (Yeah, yeah, in a DAG there may be more than one parent, but that's not the common case.) Or know what a push/pull operation is going to change on both sides of the connection. And key management and trust has been broken since day one and is still not fixed. Etc, etc, etc.
- No hosting: None of the major project hosting sites support Monotone. While there are some playground hosting sites, they are toys. I have also maintained my own servers sometimes, but it's certainly inconvenient and annoying.
- No tools support: Pretty much no major development tools support Monotone as a VCS backend. Consider Ohloh, your favorite bug tracking system or your editor/IDE. (I attempted to install Trac with some alpha plugin to add Monotone support and it was a huge mess.)
- No more active development: This is the drop that spills the cup. The developers of Monotone that created the foundations of the project left years ago. While the rest of the developers did a good job in coming up with a 1.0 release by March 2011, nothing else has happened since then. To me, it looks like a dead project at this point :-(
Furthermore, the few times some end user has approached ATF to offer some contribution, he has had tons of trouble getting a fresh checkout of the repository and given up. So staying with Monotone hurts the project more than it helps.
The adoption of Subversion (in Kyua)
To fix this mess, when I created the Kyua project two years ago, I decided to use Subversion instead of a DVCS. I knew upfront that it was a clear regression from a functionality point of view, but I was going to live with it. The rationale for this decision was to make the entry barrier to Kyua much lower by using off-the-shelf project hosting. And, because NetBSD developers use CVS (shrugh), choosing Subversion was a reasonable choice because of the workflow similarities to CVS and thus, supposedly, the low entry barrier.
Sincerely, the choice of Subversion has not fixed anything, and it has introduced its own trouble. Let's see why:
- ATF continues to be hosted in a Monotone repository, and Kyua depends on ATF. You can spot the problem, can't you? It's a nightmare to check out all the dependencies of Kyua, using different tools, just to get the thing working.
- As of today, Git is as popular, if not more, than Subversion. All the major operating systems have binary packages for Git and/or bundle Git in their base installation (hello, OS X!). Installing Git on NetBSD is arguably easier (at least faster!) than Subversion. Developers are used to Git. Or let me fix that: developers love Git.
- Subversion gets on the way more than it helps; it really does once you have experienced what other VCSs have to offer. I currently maintain independent checkouts of the repository (appropriately named 1, 2 and 3) so that I can develop different patches on each before committing the changes. This gets old really quickly. Not to mention when I have to fly for hours, as being stuck without an internet connection and plain-old Subversion... is suboptimal. Disconnected operation is key.
The fact that Subversion is slowing down development, and the fact that it really does not help in getting new contributors more than Git would, make me feel it is time to say Subversion goodbye.
The migration to Git
At this point, I am seriously considering switching all of ATF, Lutok and Kyua to Git. No Mercurial, no Bazaar, no Fossil, no anything else. Git.
I am still not decided, and at this point all I am doing is toying around the migration process of the existing Monotone and Subversion repositories to Git while preserving as much of the history as possible. (It's not that hard, but there are a couple of details I want to sort out first.)
I am still not decided, and at this point all I am doing is toying around the migration process of the existing Monotone and Subversion repositories to Git while preserving as much of the history as possible. (It's not that hard, but there are a couple of details I want to sort out first.)
But why Git?
- First and foremost, because it is the most popular DVCS. I really want to have the advantages of disconnected development back. (I have tried git-svn and svk and they don't make the cut.)
- At work, I have been using Git for a while to cope with the "deficiencies" of the centralized VCS of choice. We use the squashing functionality intensively, and I find this invaluable to constantly and shamelessly commit incomplete/broken pieces of code that no-one will ever see. Not everything deserves being in the recorded history!
- Related to the above, I've grown accustomed to keeping unnamed, private branches in my local copy of the repository. These branches needn't match the public repository. In Monotone, you had this functionality in the form of "multiple heads for a given branch", but this approach is not as flexible as named private branches.
- Monotone is able to export a repository to Git, so the transition is easy for ATF. I have actually been doing this periodically so that Ohloh can gather stats for ATF.
- Lutok and ATF are hosted in Google Code, and this hosting platform now supports Git out of the box.
- No Mercurial? Mercurial looks a lot like Monotone, and it is indeed very tempting. However, the dependency on Python is not that appropriate in the NetBSD context. Git, without its documentation, builds very quickly and is lightweight enough. Plus, if I have to change my habits, I would rather go with Git given that the other open source projects I am interested in use Git.
- No Bazaar? No, not that popular. And the fact that this is based on GNU arch makes me cringe.
- No Fossil? This tool looks awesome and provides much more than DVCS functionality: think about distributed wiki and bug tracking; cool, huh? It also appears to be a strong contender in the current discussions of what system should NetBSD choose to replace CVS. However, it is a one-man effort, much like Monotone was. And few people are familiar with it, so Fossil wouldn't solve the issue of lowering the entry barrier. Choosing Fossil would mean repeating the same mistake as choosing Monotone.
So, while Git has its own deficiencies — e.g. I still don't like the fact that it is unable to record file moves (heuristics are not the same) — it seems like a very good choice. The truth is, it will ease development by a factor of a million (OK, maybe not that much) and, because the only person (right?) that currently cares about the upstream sources for any of these projects is me, nobody should be affected by the change.
The decision may seem a bit arbitrary given that the points above don't provide too much rationale to compare Git against the other alternatives. But if I want to migrate, I have to make a choice and this is the one that seems most reasonable.
Comments? Encouragements? Criticisms?
The decision may seem a bit arbitrary given that the points above don't provide too much rationale to compare Git against the other alternatives. But if I want to migrate, I have to make a choice and this is the one that seems most reasonable.
Comments? Encouragements? Criticisms?
