Tim Yamin wrote: >On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:55:01PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > >>>CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well... >>> >>>__Problem: CVS__ >>> >>>CVS is one of the worst application ever created. The portage tree >>>needs to move to subversion. A lot of the problems within the project >>>would be solved by using a better SCM system. The previous problems >>>regarding the Live Tree and Developer Growth would be solved, IMHO, by >>>just switching. Branches Work. Tags Work. Reverts work. Moves >>>work. I don't see any reason not to use it. It just plain works. >>> >>> >>Have you tried using SVN for the portage tree? I don't know if anybody >>has recently, but in the past when people tried there were two >>significant problems: SVN requires at least 2x the tree size for storage >>on the local machine, and checkouts take something akin to an order of >>magnitude longer than CVS. The former is annoying, but liveable, but >>the latter is a deal-breaker. >> >> > >Speaking of which, has anybody done any tests with svk? (http://svk.elixus.org) >And: http://svk.elixus.org/?WhySVK -- it would be interesting to compare >checkout performance on it as well. > > Since it is derived from svn, I think it would be x times slower than svn. Besides, why would we need a decentralized SCM?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
