On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote: [...] > I don't really buy this performance noise about branches. In Darwin > CVS, the Core OS team make a new branch *for every bug fixed* (my fault > it's done that way). Each branch is merged down individually as the > changes are approved by the group, and is allows engineers to hack away > and commit as they go without disrupting anyone else. I'm talking > about several hundred branches, and it's all running fine on some G4 > box in a lab.
On a smaller scale, but still bigger than the httpd-2.0 repository: At one place I do work we have almost 10000 files in CVS where we frequently make several branches a week. It works fine. Sure, CVS branching isn't as nifty as what you have with perforce and probably subversion; but much nicer than duplicating the repository left and right. > As Mark said, long-lived branches do take a hit, but that's why you > branch off the maintenance release on leave active development on HEAD. The above mentioned project actually did it the other way around for the longest time. Not so nice, but I got them to change it because it's easier to manage with active development closer to HEAD, not because it was too slow otherwise. - ask -- ask bjoern hansen, http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/ !try; do();
