| 1 |
On Monday 27 March 2006 07:43, Ryan Phillips wrote: |
| 2 |
> Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> said: |
| 3 |
> > Have you followed the threads in the past regarding using other |
| 4 |
> > version control systems for portage? Some devs have done benchmarks |
| 5 |
> > and found that there are blocking issues with subversion, |
| 6 |
> > particularly because of its repo-wide revisions that prevent multiple |
| 7 |
> > commits from happening simultaneously. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> In actuality, Subversion does 98% of the commit in an initial |
| 10 |
> transaction, and the blocking only occurs in the last 2% with the FSFS |
| 11 |
> filesystem. It really isn't an issue and shouldn't prevent us from |
| 12 |
> adopting it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Indeed, subversion first uploads the stuff, only then creates a new |
| 15 |
revision. In any case one does not want multiple commits at the same time |
| 16 |
in any case. For full portage the problems are more likely to be with svn |
| 17 |
update. One can expect there will be a lot more updates than commits. As |
| 18 |
the commits done are fairly small, those should not be an issue. Updates |
| 19 |
work on the whole tree however. Initial checkouts are worse, because they |
| 20 |
require the head to be reassembled (IIRC). Head checkout could be cached |
| 21 |
though (but I don't think that's done currently). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Paul |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 27 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 28 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 29 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives