Jörg Jahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jan Holesovsky schrieb: > > Of course we could do this - but you know how slow the resyncs are. > > I had a CWS where resync took 36 hours - no kidding. Here in the > > office, we have a build machine that is about that powerful as what > > CN can offer for the entire SVN with all its users. How long do you > > think the resync will take there locally with a tool like git that > > is _designed_ to do resyncs and merges quickly... One minute? > > Five? At most. Not mentioning that git solves conflicts much > > better - because it has the entire history of both branches. > > > > What would be an acceptable time for a cwsresync for you? 36 hours > certainly seems much too high, at least when the resync is to be done > regularly. But would 1 hour perhaps be acceptable? And if with > Subversion a resync were possible within 1 hour, would the scenario > which Bernd described be imaginable for your work? > Hi Joerg,
well, given that git is able to perform the task in about no time, why would anything that takes an order of magnitude longer be acceptable? Besides that, my trouble with that centralized approach are e.g. that this mandates exactly one policy - for commit rights, licensing, process, you get the idea. Having a staging tree of DSCM repos allows for relaxed rules on some of them, while still maintaining our standards on the 'vanilla' repo. I mean, a dev can simply clone that repo, and commit right away on his disk, without any administrative overhead whatsoever. Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
