On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:58:59 -0400 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, everyone, go back and read the actual *facts* that were > discovered using copies of *our* repositories before going around > using data from outside sources. Alec Warner's test results are here, of course: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/cvs-migration.xml FI on gentoo-x86 we're doing about 10,000 commits a month (from 100 to 500 commits a day), according to my #gentoo-commits logs. (Assuming the SVN revision is a 32-bit number, it'll take about 1000 years to saturate). Personally I'm a fan of SVN over CVS, but that's from a client perspective not the server. It would be interesting to find out why SVN consumes double the bandwidth to checkout a full tree. It would also be interesting to find out why the server disk usage is 4x that of CVS (and what difference the choice of back-end makes). FWIW the things I like in SVN, in order of importance to me are: 1) ability to do diffs off-line 2) maintains history when copying, moving etc (e.g. 'svn log' of CPV-r2 traces the history back through the point at which it was copied from CPV-r1) 3) command line is largely the same as CVS (which avoids confusion when moving between CVS and SVN repositories) Alec - any chance you could flesh out exactly what tests you did? I would have expected that the update-diff-commit cycle that we (well, repoman) typically do would be more efficient on SVN than CVS, in terms of the amount of data transferred between the client and server (svn client sends diffs, cvs client sends whole files, and the diff operation in the repoman cycle would be local in svn). -- Kevin F. Quinn -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
