X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/961ac9575a684c09b2c3423a4e21f9a2c377d64a..66ada76693b3f801f3a7dce4b450095a9a1dbe37:/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn diff --git a/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn b/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn index 84081d6a7..079dd1576 100644 --- a/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn +++ b/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn @@ -29,11 +29,14 @@ see [[commit-internals]]. You browse and web-edit the wiki on W. +W "belongs" to ikiwiki and should not be edited directly. + ## [darcs](http://darcs.net/) (not yet included) Support for using darcs as a backend is being worked on by [Thomas -Schwinge](mailto:tschwinge@gnu.org). +Schwinge](mailto:tschwinge@gnu.org), although development is on hold curretly. +There is a patch in [[todo/darcs]]. ### How will it work internally? @@ -102,6 +105,18 @@ by Ikiwiki. This approach might be applicable to other distributed VCSs as well, although they're not as oriented towards transmitting changes with standalone patch bundles (often by email) as darcs is. +> The mercurial plugin seems to just use one repo and edit it directly - is +> there some reason that's okay there but not for darcs? I agree with tuomov +> that having just the one repo would be preferable; the point of a dvcs is +> that there's no difference between one repo and another. I've got a +> darcs.pm based on mercurial.pm, that's almost usable... --bma + +>> IMHO it comes down to whatever works well for a given RCS. Seems like +>> the darcs approach _could_ be done with most any distributed system, but +>> it might be overkill for some (or all?) While there is the incomplete darcs +>> plugin in [[todo/darcs]], if you submit one that's complete, I will +>> probably accept it into ikiwiki.. --[[Joey]] + ## [[Git]] Regarding the Git support, Recai says: @@ -161,4 +176,50 @@ CGI operates on M. rcs_commit() will commit directly in M. If you have any question or suggestion about the Mercurial backend please refer to [Emanuele](http://nerd.ocracy.org/em/) -## [[tla]] \ No newline at end of file +## [[tla]] + +## rcs + +There is a patch that needs a bit of work linked to from [[todo/rcs]]. + +## [Monotone](http://monotone.ca/) + +There is a patch in [[bugs/Monotone_rcs_support]]. It works, but its conflict handling is a little ugly. + +In normal use, monotone has a local database as well as a workspace/working copy. +In ikiwiki terms, the local database takes the role of the master repository, and +the srcdir is the workspace. As all monotone workspaces point to a default +database, there is no need to tell ikiwiki explicitly about the "master" database. It +will know. (BTW - this is also true of subversion. It might be possible to simplify the svn config?) + +The patch currently supports normal committing and getting the history of the page. +To understand the parallel commit approach, you need to understand monotone's +approach to conflicts: + +Monotone allows multiple micro-branches in the database. There is a command, +`mtn merge`, that takes the heads of all these branches and merges them back together +(turning the tree of branches into a dag). Conflicts in monotone (at time of writing) +need to be resolved interactively during this merge process. +It is important to note that having multiple heads is not an error condition in a +monotone database. This condition will occur in normal use. In this case +'update' will choose a head if it can, or complain and tell the user to merge. + +For the ikiwiki plugin, the monotone ikiwiki plugin borrows some ideas from the svn ikiwiki plugin. +On prepedit() we record the revision that this change is based on (I'll refer to this as the prepedit revision). When the web user +saves the page, we check if that is still the current revision. If it is, then we commit. +If it isn't then we check to see if there were any changes by anyone else to the file +we're editing while we've been editing (a diff bewteen the prepedit revision and the current rev). +If there were no changes to the file we're editing then we commit as normal. + +It is only if there have been parallel changes to the file we're trying to commit that +things get hairy. In this case the current approach is to +commit the web changes as a branch from the prepedit revision. This +will leave the repository with multiple heads. At this point, all data is saved. +The system then tries to merge the heads with a merger that will fail if it cannot +resolve the conflict. If the merge succeeds then everything is ok. + +If that merge failed then there are conflicts. In this case, the current patch calls +merge again with a merger that inserts conflict markers. It commits this new +revision with conflict markers to the repository. It then returns the text to the +user for cleanup. This is less neat than it could be, in that a conflict marked +revision gets committed to the repository.