* Carsten Haitzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:45:19 -0400 Lyle Kempler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
* Chady Kassouf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side
Lyle Kempler wrote:
Looking at get-e.org, the download page points to the E17 User's Guide,
which starts with Installing from CVS. If we instead changed the
download page to download this script and run it, you'll need wget and
tar and bzip2 and .., then new users could convert over without
* Laurence Vanek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Lyle Kempler wrote:
Looking at get-e.org, the download page points to the E17 User's
Guide, which starts with Installing from CVS. If we instead
changed the download page to download this script and run it,
you'll need wget and tar and bzip2 and
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:36:55 -0400 Lyle Kempler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
definitely. this is not about removing things - but maybe shuffling visibility
of things like cvs from first port of call, to last port of call, and encourage
users to use alternate mechanisms to get the code that is
As I wrote Raster (I wanted to write to this list but my mail client and
I mixed things up), I think the ultimate way of addressing the server
load would be BitTorrent as it is in principal a mirroring system and it
is easy to track the stats (someone mentioned this is not so easy with
cvs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:12:43 +0200
schrieb Slalomsk8er [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As I wrote Raster (I wanted to write to this list but my mail client and
I mixed things up), I think the ultimate way of addressing the server
load would be BitTorrent as it
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:24:45 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Move the data into its own repository
not going to happen. the data is an internal part of the projects - it gets
modifed 8new icons, images etc.) and is part of the build process. so not
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:43:06 +0300 Eugen Minciu [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:24:45 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Move the data into its own repository
not going to happen. the data is an internal part of the projects - it
OK. I'm done supporting git now ;) Time for other ideas.
From what has allready been presented I find anoncvs mirrors as a better
approach to tarballs, as many of us actually don't have the bandwith to
download a dist tarball every week.
CVS has hooks from what I can see.Yay. So after every
On 8/18/06, Eugen Minciu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. I'm done supporting git now ;) Time for other ideas.
From what has allready been presented I find anoncvs mirrors as a better
approach to tarballs, as many of us actually don't have the bandwith to
download a dist tarball every week.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:55:02 -0400
Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2006, at 11:15:50 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
Any statistics on the load when 24 anon checkouts occur?
Not specifically, but over the past 24 hours, the max 1 minute load
average was
On Friday, 18 August 2006, at 12:43:06 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
At this point I doubt you guys agree with my view. So, my opinion is
probably wrong and this is just a case of me being hard-headed.
It's not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of return on
investment. Making
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:39:42 -0500 Frederick Reeve [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:55:02 -0400
Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, 17 August 2006, at 11:15:50 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
Any statistics on the load when 24 anon checkouts occur?
* Eugen Minciu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I was thinking that you might want to try something if you get a
second machine up.
From the man page of git-cvsimport:
Imports a CVS repository into git. It will either create a new
repository, or incrementally import into an existing one.
So
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:19:28 -0400
Lyle Kempler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Git is interesting and all, and may offer some development advantages,
but I keep harking back to 2 statements made earlier in this thread: 1)
that we're interested in performance, and 2) the developer base is
pretty
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:43:47 -0400
Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CPU load depends entirely on the box, but anoncvs is a P4 1.7 GHz with
15 minute load averages fairly consistently under 2. And it's doing
Not exactly. The machine is doing fine; the only problem is that I
had to
On 8/17/06, Lyle Kempler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I don't get why we're not creating nightly diffs and a
tarball once a week and letting people use that (it's not exactly
difficult to script). I highly doubt most users care about checkins in
the last few hours, and I suggested doing
Hisham Mardam Bey wrote:
On 8/17/06, Lyle Kempler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I don't get why we're not creating nightly diffs and a
tarball once a week and letting people use that (it's not exactly
difficult to script). I highly doubt most users care about checkins in
the last
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:15:13 +0200 Stéphane Bauland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
Hisham Mardam Bey wrote:
On 8/17/06, Lyle Kempler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I don't get why we're not creating nightly diffs and a
tarball once a week and letting people use that (it's not exactly
what do you say? would people be willing to switch to such snaps?
As user that just wanna have a working e17, so when a bugs is
pulling my leg, I sync every day. When everything just works fine
(as it does this week, for instance), I sync once a month, when
I think about it ;p
Since I use my
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of tarballs.what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs server do daily (ormaybe several times per day) builds of packages? not rpm or deb but make
dist;
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:50:22 +0200 Chady Kassouf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
tarballs.
what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs server
* Chady Kassouf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
tarballs. what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs
server do daily (or maybe several times per day)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:37:06 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:50:22 +0200 Chady Kassouf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:50:22 +0200 Chady Kassouf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
tarballs.
what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs server
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:45:19 -0400 Lyle Kempler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
* Chady Kassouf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
tarballs. what do people think?
On Friday, 18 August 2006, at 08:21:17 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
agreed. i am not advocating REMOVING anoncvs as such - just removing
it as a first priority anonymous source access mechanism. putting
anoncvs access info into fineprint in some obscure page linked off a
download page.
Michael Jennings wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2006, at 08:21:17 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
agreed. i am not advocating REMOVING anoncvs as such - just removing
it as a first priority anonymous source access mechanism. putting
anoncvs access info into fineprint in some obscure page
On Thursday, 17 August 2006, at 11:15:50 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
Any statistics on the load when 24 anon checkouts occur?
Not specifically, but over the past 24 hours, the max 1 minute load
average was 17.55, and the max 15 minute load average was 8.56.
Looks like 1800-2200 UTC is our
Hi everyone.
I've been doing some thinking today. And I've been doing some testing as well.
And there are a few things I realized.
The first thing I realized is a reason why the pseudo-benchmark I created was
giving out evil data. In git's case this is because git does a lot of extra
Chady Kassouf wrote:
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
tarballs.
what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs server do daily
(or
maybe several times per day) builds of
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:04:37 +0300 Eugen Minciu [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Hi everyone.
I've been doing some thinking today. And I've been doing some testing as
well. And there are a few things I realized.
The first thing I realized is a reason why the pseudo-benchmark I created was
You can always ask some help on git@vger.kernel.org.Personally I have been following the development of git from a technical point of view out of interest, but at the moment I do not have a linux box unfortunately so I have not been able to play with it. It also has a tool (gitk) that visualizes
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
i think i should check git. i know svn enough to know its a viable move from
cvs - but i know very little of git - but from the comments - it seems good
(these days) - though much more radical than move to svn :)
Then try xcb :)
now if you can - try slowing down the server.
I'm running a box I found in the trash, with a designed for windows
95 sticker on the side; I would hope that's slow enough :P
On the down side, cvs2svn is taking ages -- it's currently translating
cvs commit 3000 / 25000 after about 3 hours... (the
Dènis Riedijk escreveu:
What I can say is that from a usability point of view it is very fast
(that was Linus' number one design rule when he wrote git)
For download performance it is probably important to pack the
repository before checking out from a client. Pack files are supposed
to
It is better (imho) the disk space issue is valid, BUT it is not
server-side but client site.
The svn repo is pretty light on the server (no heavier than CVS, cp
commands are lightweight copies which can help) but on the client side
there is pretty much 2 copies of everything (i.e. a cache of the
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
i think i should check git. i know svn enough to know its a viable move from
cvs - but i know very little of git - but from the comments - it seems good
(these days) - though much more radical than move to svn :)
Of course one reason for using SVN
David Seikel wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:41:34 -0400 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
FUD. You can tag CVS without having a checkout. (Try cvs -H rtag.)
And SVN doesn't even HAVE tagging. It has copying, which contrary to
popular (SVN developer) belief, is NOT the same
Hello again,
I was thinking that you might want to try something if you get a second machine
up.
From the man page of git-cvsimport:
Imports a CVS repository into git. It will either create a new repository, or
incrementally import into an existing one.
So you might want to try using a git
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:51:39 +0100 Andrew Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
i think i should check git. i know svn enough to know its a viable move from
cvs - but i know very little of git - but from the comments - it seems good
(these days) -
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 14:48:36 (-0500),
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
Do we have any current statistics about the load on a CVS mirror?
Might be easier to find more mirrors if we can give them some idea
what sort of bandwidth, disk use and CPU load they can expect.
The repository currently
On 8/14/06, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 13:42:19 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
snip
checkouts from svn are just ridiculous. agreed. but its the server
side i am asking about. as i said - i HEARD it is easier on the
server - i am after
On 8/14/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. devel cvs server + future web server (for downloads too of official
tarballs etc.)
2. an anonymous cvs server and possibly second download mirror.
so 2 systems really.
i hear that svn is significantly less load for anonymous
I will try to benchmark cvs, subversion and git today. If this doesn't take me
too long I might throw in Mercurial as well.
I'll set up a (insert one of the above SCMs) server on my desktop, with the
repository on a tmpfs, with the enlightenment repository, and I'll grab it 100
times with my
And what do you think about opening some mirrors ?
I know that raster enjoys knowing the numbers of people using the cvs,
etc...
Maybe, mirrors could give statistics and works togethers...
An other possibility is to make the official source's tree under cvs,
and make a git mirror, an other
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:41:09AM +0300, Eugen Minciu wrote:
I will try to benchmark cvs, subversion and git today. If this doesn't take
me too long I might throw in Mercurial as well.
Thanks! Be sure to post the results on the web somewhere, as I'm sure
other large projects may be interested
I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
to make a local mirror of E's whole repository? Google fails me the
specific procedure...
tmpfs,
In real life disks will be involved, it'd probably be good
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100 Shish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
to make a local mirror of E's whole repository? Google fails me the
specific procedure...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100
Shish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In real life disks will be involved, it'd probably be good to take
them into account. (I'd recommend doing both, to see what effect the
I'll grab it 100 times with my laptop
...
I was thinking a more appropriate benchmark
I have a problem because I didn't get all the cvs (just e17) and I don't
have the history information anymore (you can't keep it unless you use
a mechanism like rsync).
It was mentioned earlier that the large amount of history information
was SVN's bottleneck when you check out a fresh copy;
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 19:01:54 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
Your anti-SVN message is starting to sound like it's coming from
someone that hasn't actually run a SVN server recently.
I admin 2 and am a developer on a third. But by all means, please
feel free to continue assuming I must
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:57:42 -0400 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But by all means, please feel free to continue assuming I must not
know what I'm talking about because my opinion differs with yours.
It's much easier to write me off than to actually consider what I
have to say.
On Wednesday, 16 August 2006, at 04:09:54 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
I'm not assuming anything, I am responding to what you are actually
saying.
That was the first time you'd actually responded to *me*, and the only
other response you made indirectly to me was about the backend. I'll
refer
Hi,
I've spent a lot of time on this, but the results are ... shall we say ...
interesting. Before proceeding I have to remind you, again that I only used e17
without the version info, so you will probably want to try this out for
yourself.
The script I wrote checked the average time for a
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 22:12:47 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
CVS:
- Average checkout time: 41.843s
- CPU used: Constantly around 70% (something like 60-80%
- MEM used: 2-3%
SVN (svnserve):
- Average checkout time: 27.921s
- CPU used: 50-90%
- Mem used: 2%
SVN (http):
-
On 8/15/06, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also be interested in comparisons of incremental checkouts. As I
understand it, Git trees are complete repositories, not just
checkouts. So a checkout-to-checkout comparison is unfair as Git is
downloading a crapload more data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eugen Minciu wrote:
snip
Now I know this is probably not going to sound right but how about a git
repository?.
snip
You may be interested in reading our[0] thread[1] about our search for
an SCM, with us deciding, in the end, on git. Mainly git is
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 14:31:53 (-0700),
Inc wrote:
well, I've done a bit of a research on SVN vs. CVS.
Research isn't what we need. Performance comparison data is.
The general census is that SVN was created to improve and replace
CVS.
Yes, we know that. Whether it actually
well, thats what this is KainX. I have pretty much secured a donated box. I have also been working with raster to find the right box for us to buy. the place that I was going to have host the mirror said that its time for us to go get our own box, so I let raster know that. I'll update you more on
Well I went outside for a while and it did me good. I have a new ideea for
testing out the scm servers. Yay ;)
Instead of trying to actually save the items on my hard disk I'll try to
redirect them to /dev/null. I allready saw how I can do this with cvs and I
hope I'll find a way to do it with
It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
branches or anything resembling changeset management.
I think CVS amply provides the features we need. It's simple and robust.
It's far from perfect, but as
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 15:04:06 (-0700),
Inc wrote:
well, thats what this is KainX. I have pretty much secured a donated
box. I have also been working with raster to find the right box for
us to buy. the place that I was going to have host the mirror said
that its time for us to go
So, if anyone has any connections now would be the time to mention it. these are the specs as we are thinking so far.cpu: dual core (amd (opteron) or intel (xeon)) (in my opinion, amd is a better chip and cheaper in some aspects. you can flame me on this one)
ram: 3-4gb of quality
Kim Woelders wrote:
It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
branches or anything resembling changeset management.
I think CVS amply provides the features we need. It's simple and robust.
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:07:13 +0200 Tilman Sauerbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
Eugen Minciu [2006-08-14 15:29]:
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs servers. we are
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:07:12 +0300 Eugen Minciu [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Well I went outside for a while and it did me good. I have a new ideea for
testing out the scm servers. Yay ;)
Instead of trying to actually save the items on my hard disk I'll try to
redirect them to /dev/null. I
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:58:42 -0400 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Wednesday, 16 August 2006, at 04:09:54 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
I'm not assuming anything, I am responding to what you are actually
saying.
That was the first time you'd actually responded to *me*,
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100 Shish [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
to make a local mirror of E's whole repository? Google fails me the
specific
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:10:02 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100 Shish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
to make a
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:08:18 +0200 Kim Woelders [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
branches or anything resembling changeset management.
I think CVS amply
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:11:57 +0300 Eugen Minciu [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100
Shish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In real life disks will be involved, it'd probably be good to take
them into account. (I'd recommend doing both, to see what effect the
I'll grab
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:34:57 -0400 Kevin Brosius [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Kim Woelders wrote:
It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:07:16 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually - i think we need to know how this works WITH data on disk - why?
some
scm's may invoke much more disk IO than others and thus bottleneck at the disk
earlier than others. we need to know.
Now I wonder what that 'Attatch' button does? ...
Sorry bout that.
Eugen.
scm_benchmark.rb
Description: Binary data
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400
schrieb Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but
we are killing it
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:20:09 +0200 Stephan Wezel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400
schrieb Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
anyway
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs servers. we are monsters! :(
anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but we are
killing it (sorry kainx!)
so
The reason I wanted to go the CVS way was so that we could avoid the
importing hell you generally go through when switching systems (both
on the server side and the client side).
On that side I found DCVS: http://www.elego-software-solutions.com/dcvs/
On the other hand, I've been staring at that
Eugen Minciu [2006-08-14 15:29]:
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs servers. we are monsters! :(
anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but
It's not true. SVN requires a lot more overhead (including Apache
with SVN and DAV modules),
They aren't required, they just make things easier. You can use a
standalone svn daemon, or AFAIK have a client side client and server
side client who talk over SSH (similar to rsync's two-client
Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
this -
http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:rednaxela:scmtable
It may be helpful.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000
David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
this -
http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:rednaxela:scmtable
It may
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:51:19 +0100 Shish [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
It's not true. SVN requires a lot more overhead (including Apache
with SVN and DAV modules),
They aren't required, they just make things easier. You can use a
standalone svn daemon, or AFAIK have a client side client and
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
this -
http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:rednaxela:scmtable
It
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
this -
On 8/14/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
this -
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 13:42:19 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
yeah - though that might be harder than we think. the other problem
here is consistency - we want a user using the 1 server once they
started as if anon servers don't update at the same time - they will
have problems with
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:08:06 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs servers. we are
monsters! :(
anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:59:58 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:08:06 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
It's not true. SVN requires a lot more
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:11:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:18:40 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:11:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900
It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs servers. we are monsters! :(
anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but we are
killing it (sorry kainx!)
so its time to finally bite the bullet and
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but
we are killing it (sorry kainx!)
so its time to finally bite the
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:03:07AM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
i hear that svn is significantly less load for anonymous access -
even developer - who has experience with this server-side? can you
confirm or deny?
97 matches
Mail list logo
