Re: [fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Russ Paielli wrote: > OK, let me rephrase my question. Is there any reason to believe that fossil > will not scale up well to a large project? I have very little experience > with SCM systems, and I'm just wondering if fossil was designed with > scalability in mind. I have no reason to believe it wasn't, but I'd just > like to be sure before I recommend it for a large project. My organization > currently uses Clearcase for a project with something like 20 developers and > 2MLOC. Would I be crazy to recommend fossil? Thanks. > I don't think the number of developers really comes into play. What matters more is the number of files in a single checkin and the total size of all those files. Fossil itself is 225KLOC or 7.8MB in 291 files. Fossil was designed to manage the development of SQLite which is 500KLOC or 17MB in 895 files. The sqllogictest test suite for SQLite (http://www.sqlite.org/slt/) is 45MLOC or 1.1GB in 645 files. The TH3 test suite for SQLite is 415KLOC or 26MB in 985 files. I keep all of my OpenOffice slide presentations in a single Fossil repository. This is a directory full of binary files, most of which are measured in megabytes. The complete checkout is 110MB. All of the above work great. I don't think you are going to have any performance problems. > > Russ P. > > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski > wrote: > >> >> On Jan 4, 2011, at 20:50 , Gour wrote: >> >> > Russ> I'd be interested to know if anyone is using fossil for a "large" >> > Russ> software project. How large? Oh, let's say ten or more >> > Russ> developers. If so, how is it working out? >> > >> > Well, considering that Sqlite3 is used as storage back-end, I believe >> > you can explore that part. >> > >> > The other parts in Fossil seems to be very robust, imho. >> >> Taking into account some DVCS's based on much less robust back-ends*, like >> Git or Mercurial, I guess that Sqlite3 is not going to be the problematic >> part. >> >> * - or do you want to argue that heaps ad-hoc text files are more robust >> than one of the most popular databases? >> >> >> Kind regards, >> Remigiusz Modrzejewski >> >> >> >> ___ >> fossil-users mailing list >> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >> > > > > -- > http://RussP.us > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 07:00:27PM -0800, Russ Paielli wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:38:54PM -0800, Russ Paielli wrote: > > > My organization currently uses Clearcase for a project with something > > > like 20 developers and 2MLOC. Would I be crazy to recommend fossil? > > Thanks. > > > > Can you translate that into number of files in a working copy and > > average size? > > > > > I can't easily get that information without bothering someone else to get it > for me. Is it important? As I said before, I personally don't use Clearcase. > I've looked at some of the aforementioned code several years ago, and as far > as I know the files are typically several pages each when printed out, some > longer and some shorter. You asked about scalability to large repositories. It helps a lot to see what you understand with that in terms of numbers that actually reflect the work somewhat. It doesn't have to be precise, but at least the order of magnitude is relevant for your question. Joerg ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:38:54PM -0800, Russ Paielli wrote: > > My organization currently uses Clearcase for a project with something > > like 20 developers and 2MLOC. Would I be crazy to recommend fossil? > Thanks. > > Can you translate that into number of files in a working copy and > average size? > > I can't easily get that information without bothering someone else to get it for me. Is it important? As I said before, I personally don't use Clearcase. I've looked at some of the aforementioned code several years ago, and as far as I know the files are typically several pages each when printed out, some longer and some shorter. Russ P. -- http://RussP.us ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:38:54PM -0800, Russ Paielli wrote: > My organization currently uses Clearcase for a project with something > like 20 developers and 2MLOC. Would I be crazy to recommend fossil? Thanks. Can you translate that into number of files in a working copy and average size? Joerg ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
OK, let me rephrase my question. Is there any reason to believe that fossil will not scale up well to a large project? I have very little experience with SCM systems, and I'm just wondering if fossil was designed with scalability in mind. I have no reason to believe it wasn't, but I'd just like to be sure before I recommend it for a large project. My organization currently uses Clearcase for a project with something like 20 developers and 2MLOC. Would I be crazy to recommend fossil? Thanks. Russ P. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2011, at 20:50 , Gour wrote: > > > Russ> I'd be interested to know if anyone is using fossil for a "large" > > Russ> software project. How large? Oh, let's say ten or more > > Russ> developers. If so, how is it working out? > > > > Well, considering that Sqlite3 is used as storage back-end, I believe > > you can explore that part. > > > > The other parts in Fossil seems to be very robust, imho. > > Taking into account some DVCS's based on much less robust back-ends*, like > Git or Mercurial, I guess that Sqlite3 is not going to be the problematic > part. > > * - or do you want to argue that heaps ad-hoc text files are more robust > than one of the most popular databases? > > > Kind regards, > Remigiusz Modrzejewski > > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- http://RussP.us ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
On Jan 4, 2011, at 20:50 , Gour wrote: > Russ> I'd be interested to know if anyone is using fossil for a "large" > Russ> software project. How large? Oh, let's say ten or more > Russ> developers. If so, how is it working out? > > Well, considering that Sqlite3 is used as storage back-end, I believe > you can explore that part. > > The other parts in Fossil seems to be very robust, imho. Taking into account some DVCS's based on much less robust back-ends*, like Git or Mercurial, I guess that Sqlite3 is not going to be the problematic part. * - or do you want to argue that heaps ad-hoc text files are more robust than one of the most popular databases? Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:03:29 -0800 >> "Russ" == Russ Paielli >> wrote: Russ> I'd be interested to know if anyone is using fossil for a "large" Russ> software project. How large? Oh, let's say ten or more Russ> developers. If so, how is it working out? Well, considering that Sqlite3 is used as storage back-end, I believe you can explore that part. The other parts in Fossil seems to be very robust, imho. Sincerely, Gour -- Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: CDBF17CA signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] fossil for large projects?
I'd be interested to know if anyone is using fossil for a "large" software project. How large? Oh, let's say ten or more developers. If so, how is it working out? I work in a Clearcase environment, but I work fairly independently, so I am able to get away with using fossil. I would like to encourage my colleagues to eventually move away from Clearcase, but that won't be easy, because we have well over a decade of history stored, and Clearcase is not compatible with the newer SCM systems. In any case, I am wondering if I should try to make a case for fossil. Thanks. Russ P. -- http://RussP.us ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
