| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:55:52PM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >> __Problem: CVS__ |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> CVS is one of the worst application ever created. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Hear, hear. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I'd like to see a move to Subversion made a priority for 2006. If there |
| 11 |
> > are problems with Subversion's performance with our tree, engage with |
| 12 |
> > its authors to obtain improvements. But get it done. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Here's an idea I had tonight. Since we're going to be doing the Google |
| 15 |
> SoC this summer, perhaps a great project would be having someone work on |
| 16 |
> this migration (or at least do an unbiased test implementation). I'd be |
| 17 |
> willing to provide an infra server for testing/development. I don't see |
| 18 |
> much problem at least trying to work out all the details. I don't think |
| 19 |
> infra will go with any change unless there is a clear, detailed |
| 20 |
> migration plan with proper back-out plans also. The tree is the most |
| 21 |
> important part of our distribution and I'm not going to let such a |
| 22 |
> migration go by without proper planning and testing. After the test |
| 23 |
> implementation is done and has been fully tested, perhaps the council |
| 24 |
> could make the final decision if infra is happy with the |
| 25 |
> implementation/migration details. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It looks like if/when implemented, GLEP 44 (Manifest2) will significantly reduce |
| 28 |
the number of small files in the tree. Whoever ends up doing the initial |
| 29 |
benchmarking and testing should probably keep this in mind. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Renat Lumpau all things web-apps |
| 33 |
C6A838DA 04AF B5EE 17CB 1000 DDA5 D3FC 1338 ADC2 C6A8 38DA |
| 34 |
America - land of the free* |
| 35 |
*Void where prohibited, restrictions apply. Cash value 1/100c. |
Archives