A couple of stories by Charles Babcock and (my coincidentally old friend) Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols have mentioned the existence of an ‘NTPsec’ project being funded by the Core Infrastructure Initiative as an alternative and perhaps eventual replacement for the reference implementation of Network Time Protocol maintained by Harlan Stenn and the Network Time Foundation.
I confirm that NTPsec does exist, and that I am deeply involved in it.
The project has not yet officially released code, though you can view a preliminary web page at ntpsec.org. For various complicated political reasons a full public discussion of the project’s genesis and goals should wait until we go fully public. You probably won’t have to wait long for this.
I can, however, disclose several facts that I think will be of interest to readers of this blog…
If you hate pointless merge bubbles as much as I do, you’ll kick yourself because you didn’t think of this.
But don’t feel bad. I should have, a lot sooner, myself.
I think it’s weird that I have to write this post in 2015, but earlier today I had to explain to someone with the technical skills to submit a good patch that he was doing the process wrong in some basic and extremely annoying ways.
Googling revealed that most explanations of patch etiquette are rather project-specific in their advice. So I’m going to explain the basics of patch submission that apply to just about any open-source project, with a focus on how to do it right when you aren’t a regular committer (that is, it’s what’s often called a drive-by patch). Here we go…
In my last post, I inveighed against using git-svn to do whole-repository conversions from Subversion to git (as opposed to its intended use, which is working a Subversion repository live through a git remote).
Now comes the word that hundreds of projects a week seem to be fleeing SourceForge because of their evil we’ll-hijack-your-repo-and-crapwarify-your installer policy. And they’re moving to GitHub via its automatic importer. Which, sigh, uses git-svn.
I wouldn’t trust that automatic importer (or any other conversion path that uses git-svn) with anything I write, so I don’t know how badly it messes things up.
But as a public service, I follow with a description of how a really well-done repository conversion – the kind I would deliver using reposurgeon – differs from a crappy one.
This is a public-service warning.
It has come to my attention that some help pages on the web are still recommending git-svn as a conversion tool for migrating Subversion repositories to git. DO NOT DO THIS. You may damage your history badly if you do.
Reminder: I am speaking as an expert, having done numerous large and messy repository conversions. I’ve probably done more Subversion-to-git lifts than anybody else, I’ve torture-tested all the major tools for this job, and I know their failure modes intimately. Rather more intimately than I want to…
There’s a deeply annoying class of phenomena which, if you write code for any length of time, you will inevitably encounter. I have found it to be particularly prevalent in transformations to clean up or canonicalize large, complex data sets; repository export tools hit variants of it all the time, and so does my doclifter program for lifting [nt]roff markup to XML-DocBook.
It goes like this. You write code that handles a large fraction (say, 80%) of the problem space in a week. Then you notice that it’s barfing on the 20% remaining edge cases. These will be ugly to handle and greatly increase the complexity of your program, but it can be done, and you do it.
Once again, you have solved 80% of the remaining cases, and it took about a week – because your code is more complex than it used to be; testing it and making sure you don’t have regressions is about twice as difficult. But it can be done, at the cost of doubling your code complexity again, and you do it. Congratulations! You now handle 80% of the remaining cases. Then you notice that it’s barfing on 20% of remaining tricky edge cases….
…lather, rinse, repeat. If the problem space is seriously gnarly you can find yourself in a seemingly neverending cycle in which you’re expending multiplicatively more effort on each greater effort for multiplicatively decreasing returns. This is especially likely if your test range is expanding to include weirder data sets – in my case, older and gnarlier repositories or newer and gnarlier manual pages.
I think this is a common enough hazard of programming to deserve a name.
Back in 2012, Poul-Henning-Kamp wrote a disgruntled article in ACM Queue, A Generation Lost in the Bazaar.
It did not occur to me to respond in public at the time, but someone else’s comment on a G+ thread about the article revived the thread. Rereading my reaction, I think it is still worth sharing for the fundamental point about scaling and chaos.
Gitorious – which I preferred to GitHub for being totally open-source – is shutting down sometime in May. I had no fewer than 26 projects on there, including reposurgeon, cvs-fast-import, doclifter, and INTERCAL.
Now they’ve moved. This won’t affect most of my users, as the web pages and distribution tarballs are still in their accustomed locations at catb.org. If you’re a committer on any of these Gitirious repos, of course, the move actually matters.
Temporarily the repositories are on thyrsus.com; here’s the entire list. They may not stay there, but moving them to thyrsus.com was 90% of the work of moving them anywhere else and now I can consider options at my leisure.
An incredibly shrinking Firefox faces endangered species status, says Computerworld, and reports their user market share at 10% and dropping. It doesn’t look good for the Mozilla Foundation – especially not with so much of their funding coming from Google which of course has its own browser to push.
I wish I could feel sadder about this. I was there at the beginning, of course – the day Netscape open-sourced the code that would become Mozilla and later Firefox was the shot heard ’round the world of the open source revolution, and the event that threw The Cathedral and the Bazaar into the limelight. It should be a tragedy – personally, for me – that the project is circling the drain.
Instead, all I can think is “They brought the fate they deserved on themselves.” Because principles matter – and in 2014 the Mozilla Foundation abandoned and betrayed one of the core covenants of open source.
I’ve been radio silent the last couple of weeks mainly because I’ve been concentrating furiously on getting a GPSD release out the door. This one is a little more noteworthy than usual because it may actually have fixed a well-hidden flaw or vulnerability of some significance.
Regular readers may recall from back in 2013 that I published a heads-up titled No, GPSD is not the battery-killer on your Android! addressing a power-drain bug reported from a handful of Android phones.
I believed at the time that the proximate cause of the bug was in the kernel serial device-drivers somewhere specific to particular hardware on those phones. I still believe that, because if it had been a purely GPSD problem the error would likely have been much more widespread and I’d have been flooded with complaints.
However, I’ve been concerned ever since that GPSD might not have been doing everything it could to armor itself against bugginess in the layers below it. And a couple of weeks ago I found a problem…
The Great Beast, designed for converting large CVS repos, is now in full production. It hasn’t killed off any specimens in the wild yet (and I’ll explain why in a bit), but it’s doing spectacularly well on our test repositories.
As a representative large example, the entire Emacs CVS history, 1985-2009, 113309 CVS commits, lifts clean in 37 seconds at a sustained rate of 3K CVS commits a second. Yes, three thousand.
The biggest beast known to us, the NetBSD src repository, converts in 22 minutes. To give some idea of what a speedup this is, the first time I ran a lift on it – on one of Wendell’s Xeon machines – it took a bit under six hours. That’s about a factor of seventeen, there.
Judging by performance on the other project devs’ machines the Beast is good for a 2x to 3x speedup over a conventionally-balanced PC design (that is, one with worse RAM latency, narrower caches, more cores but somewhat lower single-thread speed). That’s a big enough advantage to validate the design and be practically significant on large repositories.
How To Learn Hacking: Version 1.2, with a new section on being original. Incorporates more feedback from here and G++
For those of you who wondered why this didn’t just become a major section in How To Become A Hacker, it’s because I think it might become long enough to make that document too bulky to read at one sitting.
I just shipped SRC 0.9, and you no longer need to be adventurous to try it. It has a regression-test suite and real users.
Remarkably, SRC has had real users since 0.3, two days after it was born. Even more remarkably, the count of crash reports and botched operations from those users is zero. Zero. This is what you can gain from keeping code simple – I have has a couple of bug reports but they were both about filename quoting in the fast-export code, which is not a central feature.
Next, I’ll make a couple of what I think are important points about writing for zero defects. Then I’ll talk about a subtle issue or two in the design, and our one known behavioral glitch.
Finally. After ten months of work, it’s done. Emacs is fully converted to git. You can clone from git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git and if you have commit rights you can push to it and the changes will stick. The bzr repo is still up but only as an archive.
I wrote a version-control system today. Yes, an entire VCS. Took me 14 hours.
Yeah, you’re looking at me like I’m crazy. “Why,” you ask, quite reasonably, “would you want to do a thing like that? We’re not short of powerful VCSes these days.
That is true. But I got to thinking, early this morning, about the fact that I haven’t been able to settle on just one VCS. I use git for most things, but there’s a use case git doesn’t cover. I have some document directories in which I have piles of things like HOWTOs which have separate histories from each other. Changes in them are not correlated, and I want to be able to move them around because I sometimes do that to reorganize them.
What have I been using for this? Why, RCS. The ancient Revision Control System, second oldest VCS in existence and clinging tenaciously to this particular niche. It does single-file change histories pretty well, but its UI is horrible. Worse than git’s, which is a pretty damning comparison.
Then I got to thinking. If I were going to design a VCS to do this particular single-file, single-user job, what would it look like? Hm. Sequential integer revision numbers, like Subversion and Mercurial used locally. Lockless operation. Modern CLI design. Built-in command help. Interchange with other VCSes via git import streams. This sounds like it could be nice…
Then, the idea that made it inevitable. “I bet.” I thought, “I could write this thing as a Python wrapper around RCS tools. Use them for delta storage but hide all the ugly parts.”
Thus, SRC. Simple Revision Control, v0.1.
I’ve just shipped a new version of cvs-fast-export, 1.26. It speeds the tool up more, more, more – cranking through 25 years and 113300 commits of Emacs CVS history, for example in 2:48. That’s 672 commits a second, for those of you in the cheap seats.
But the real news this time is a Python wrapper called ‘cvsconvert’ that takes a CVS repository, runs a conversion to Git using cvs-fast-export, and then – using CVS for checkouts – examines the CVS and git repositories side by side looking for translation glitches. It checks every branch tip and every tag.
Running this on several of my test repos I’ve discovered some interesting things. One such discovery is of a bug in CVS. (Yeah, I know, what a shock…)
Some people on the NetBSD tech-repository list have wondered why I’ve been working on a full NetBSD repository conversion without a formal request from NetBSD’s maintainers that I do so.
It’s a fair question. An answer to it involves both historical contingency and some general issues about moving and mirroring large repositories. Because of the accident that a lot of people have recently dropped money on me in part to support an attack on this problem, I’m going to explain both in public.
Wendell Wilson over at TekSyndicate had a good idea – run the NetBSD repo conversion on a machine roughly comparable to the Great Beast design. The objective was (a) to find out if it freakin’ worked, and (b) to get a handle on expected conversion time and maximum working set for a really large conversion.
The news is pretty happy on all fronts.
I’ve attempted to summarize the discussion of build options for the repository-surgery machine. You should see a link at the top of the page: if not, it’s here
I invite all the commenters who have shown an interest to critique these build proposals. Naturally, I’d like to make sure we have a solid parts list with no spec conflicts before we start spending money and time to build this thing.
Something of significance to the design discussion for the Great Beast occurred today.
I have finally – finally! – achieved significant insight into the core merge code, the “black magic” section of cvs-fast-export. If you look in merge.c in the repo head version you’ll see a bunch of detailed comments that weren’t there before. I feel rather as Speke and Burton must have when after weeks of hacking their way through the torrid jungles of darkest Africa they finally glimpsed the source of the Nile…