Verilog/ASIC development support is insufficient in git , help!

["Justin Leung" <jleung@redback.com>]

Hi all,

* This email probably represent the whole hardware ASIC community about git 
*

I'm evaluating Git as the replacement of CVS for the ASIC group in my 
company,
but things are moving along very bumpy.

I (and many others doing the evaluation) love the tool dearly; we love the 
local repository and inter-db sync'ing .
I see a lot of potential in productivity and changes in work model that 
helps efficiency in ASIC dev.

BUT, my managers, some veterans, and directors are EXTREMELY concerned about 
the ease-of-use..
so much that they are going to pick SVN !  uh-oh....i m serious =(

Alot of people argued, why not SVN ? it's CVS++ and it's ease of use not a 
problem when comparing to Git.

here are the things not fitting right in ASIC dev:

- no incremental revision numbers (they are so scared of the 40hex SHA1)

- Inability to reference without SHA1, they want simple numbering (ie, 
version 100, 120, 120.1, 130.4.5)

- Inability to refer to a file by a simple number
(the backend guys will be confused by SHA1; they can't work with anything 
more than 4-5 digits)

- Complexity of commands (although we can have warpper, but real git 
commands for non-sw guys is not going to happen)

Most hardware chip designers were using CVS since their first job.
It suited the purpose very well.

Most RTL design veterans only use less then 5-6 cvs commands in their whole 
life (LOL, i m serious) :

$ cvs checkout
$ cvs update
$ cvs log
$ cvs diff (tkdiff)
$ cvs status
$ cvs commit

We don't use branches.
Our model is strict forward with a centralized, one main branch model to 
avoid mistakes .
We see branches as evil ; some merges in Verilog codes means another 10+ 
hours of simulation and regression.

I'm a verification engineers for the hardware chips designers, there we use 
Vera and SystemVerilog which requires much in
depth use of SCM functions.  So, the choice of tools is much more important 
on our side (the designers only checkin and out, diff, and minimal merging)

I m frustrated about the situration, i truly want Git in ASIC world !!!
(yell out loud... no p4, no svn, no clearcase... or i rather keep cvs)

Is there a way to specify the use of a simple GIT model in config, or like, 
info/attribute,
such that (in git main repository model of course) :

(1) SHA1s are hidden, but replaced by simple numbers
(2) Simple, incremental numbers (like 'git-5432' ; what we use 
'git-describe' to generate)
(3) Reference of simple revision numbers in all git commands and tools like 
gitk, not SHA1

I personally have no problem with the SHA1 . but many are allergic to it .

As I have learned so much about the power of git,
I understand that:

- 'git-show-branch' actually show reversed serialized version numbers (we 
want it the other way, accending)
- 'git-describe' gives you commit numbers since your last annotated tags ( 
ie, git-5423-g7def45b)

so, i understand that a simple numbering scheme can be done .

I truly hope that the in the main repository model of git this can be turned 
on by a switch or in the git config .

Is it too complicated to incorporate this model ?

I m eager to hear about the options

Thanks,

  Justin Leung

  ASIC Verification Engineering

  Redback Networks
  a company of Ericsson