Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alin Nastac <mrness@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:49:47
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union by (Tim Yamin)
1 Tim Yamin wrote:
3 >On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:55:01PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
4 >
5 >
6 >>>CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well...
7 >>>
8 >>>__Problem: CVS__
9 >>>
10 >>>CVS is one of the worst application ever created. The portage tree
11 >>>needs to move to subversion. A lot of the problems within the project
12 >>>would be solved by using a better SCM system. The previous problems
13 >>>regarding the Live Tree and Developer Growth would be solved, IMHO, by
14 >>>just switching. Branches Work. Tags Work. Reverts work. Moves
15 >>>work. I don't see any reason not to use it. It just plain works.
16 >>>
17 >>>
18 >>Have you tried using SVN for the portage tree? I don't know if anybody
19 >>has recently, but in the past when people tried there were two
20 >>significant problems: SVN requires at least 2x the tree size for storage
21 >>on the local machine, and checkouts take something akin to an order of
22 >>magnitude longer than CVS. The former is annoying, but liveable, but
23 >>the latter is a deal-breaker.
24 >>
25 >>
26 >
27 >Speaking of which, has anybody done any tests with svk? (
28 >And: -- it would be interesting to compare
29 >checkout performance on it as well.
30 >
31 >
32 Since it is derived from svn, I think it would be x times slower than svn.
33 Besides, why would we need a decentralized SCM?


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature