On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 19:29, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > Note that svnmerge broke at exactly the same scale point, for exactly the > same reason: every svnmerge touched root properties, thereby effectively > serializing access to the tree. There were lots of curses from people > trying to svnmerge at the sprints in previous years.
The right solution here is to use different clones for different projects/areas. The proposed interpreter/stdlib split, for example, might reduce contention (although I imagine it would reduce it only by a little bit?). Supposedly other meaningful subdivisions exist. Then people working on those projects don't keep the central repo occupied, instead only merging their project tree into the main tree on some delayed schedule (say, weekly). This is something that Mozilla has been doing, for example, their JS interpreter is now developed in a separate clone. It might also be a good match for sprints, where one room could have its own repo and the other room has a different repo. Or all the packaging sprinters push to their cpython-packaging repo. Cheers, Dirkjan _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
