No-one needs to be told that any project you work on needs a version-control system. Nowadays, even when writing documents or OWL ontologies, I'll use source control, and if it's something that can be shared with others, then I might even start up a new Google Code project, so that I have a wiki and issue-tracking, too.
Up until a few months ago, my VCS of choice was SVN, and it served us well. But more recently I decided to give a distributed version-control system a try, and to my surprise found not only something that could track my work, but something that facilitated a new way of working.
Choosing a DVCS
The two main contenders seemed to be Mercurial and Git, although there are definitely others. As far as I can tell, Git is the more advanced of the two, and I was about to start using it when I discovered that Google Code supported Mercurial. Since the differences between the two are not that great, and since I've always been of the opinion that time spent trying to choose the 'best' is would be better spent getting on and learning, I plumped for Mercurial.
But I'd like to stress that even if Git and Mercurial were worlds apart, it wouldn't make much difference, because the significant difference between these two and SVN is that it makes for a completely difference workflow.
Source-control as backup, and the problem of code reviews
For many years I've seen VCS as essentially a kind of 'back up'. It's a way of storing the code that matches a particular release of your software, so that you can go back to it if a customer spots a bug. It's also a central location that is authoritative for your code-base.
But over the last year or so, I've found that this model doesn't really help when it comes to managing code that is contributed to a project. If you allow many programmers to commit to the project, then the history becomes a mish- mash of comments about fixed bugs, branches, code reviews, and so on.
For example, a common problem is that inexperienced programmers will commit too much code at a time, for review. Contributions will invariably include a mixture of basic tidying up -- such as switching tabs and spaces, removing erroneous comments, or ensuring that code conforms to a house style -- some bug fixes that were spotted 'whilst I was there', and then of course the proper fix itself.
Of course, more experienced programmers will split these elements into separate commits, so that reviewers can focus on just what has changed. But with a tool like SVN, this is actually quite difficult to manage.
For example, imagine that you start work on fixing issue 123. You add your tests, add some code, and things are going quite well. You discover some old comments that are no longer relevant, and delete them. You see that some of the code doesn't conform to the house-style, and you fix that. And then as often happens, you realise that to fix issue 123, you actually need to add support for something else that no-one had thought of before; you dive into that, and add your tests.
Ideally you should submit code for two reviews now; the whitespace and coding style changes can usually go straight into trunk, but the new feature and the fix for issue 123 should be submitted for review.
But how to separate them?
Mercurial as a patch-manager
The answer is of course, creating a set of patches, and getting those reviewed, but although 'mastering patches' has been on my long list of things to do for quite a while now, I'd never quite got round to it.
So it came as quite a surprise to discover that a key feature of Mercurial is its ability to manage patches -- this moves version control out of the category of a backup system, and into a crucial part of the programmer's toolbox. Programmers can now 'craft' their patches for submission, grouping different pieces of work together in one patch, and then submitting them for review. Rather than fighting against the VCS, the system helps them to get their code ready.
In Mercurial for example, I can use
hg qrecord to interactively create three
patches from the mixture of changes that I described a moment ago. Or if the
changes are in separate files, I can create patches that only contain certain
files, by using the
-I options on
But once you know what you are doing with patches, it really becomes even easier, as I'll illustrate.
My favourite way to work now is to create a basic housekeeping patch at the beginning:
hg qnew housekeeping
Then I create a patch for the code I want to work on:
hg qnew issue-123 -m "Fix issue 123."
We work away on our changes to the code, adding our tests and so on, and then
when we want to save those changes to our patch, we simply use the
Then we spot some whitespace issues, and perhaps a few unused variables.
Rather than making the changes there and then, we 'unapply' our current patch
-- the one that contains all of the changes to fix issue 123 -- by using the
Our entire working directory is now back to where it was when we created the
'housekeeping' patch, but all of our changes for 'issue-123' are safely stored
in a patch, waiting to be reapplied. And any changes that we make now, by
qrefresh command, will automatically be placed into the
'housekeeping' patch, rather than the 'issue-123' patch. As you can see
Mercurial is helping us manage our patches, as we try to get them ready for
Once we've made our housekeeping changes, we can reapply our 'issue-123'
patch, by using the
The working directory now reflects all of the changes that we had been working on before.
A slightly more complicated scenario arises when we realise that the work we are doing should really be a separate piece of work. The easiest scenario is when we've added a file or two, but realise it's not really about 'issue-123', but