| 1 |
Tim Yamin wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 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? (http://svk.elixus.org) |
| 28 |
>And: http://svk.elixus.org/?WhySVK -- 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? |
Archives