This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC]
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: 03 Apr 2002 17:19:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC]
- References: <200203280317.WAA05137@caip.rutgers.edu><20020328034552.GB23767@codesourcery.com>
Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 10:17:03PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > > (E.g. it takes about 10x longer to do "cvs update" on the 3.0
> > > branch than the trunk.)
> >
> > Yeah, what's up with that? (I thought it was just me.)
>
> The way RCS stores branches makes the cost of calculating diffs from a
> branch tip proportional to the number of versions on the branch *and*
> the distance between the branchpoint and top-of-trunk. I imagine
> update has to do diffs for some reason.
>
> That's the problem I know about; there may be others.
The Subversion version control system (http://subversion.tigris.org)
stores the tip of each branch in full text, not as deltas --- for
files modified on that branch, at least. It should also be very cheap
to create branches; the cost isn't proportional to the size of the
tree being branched.
Or at least, that's the way it's *supposed* to be. :) Subversion is
still a ways from a 1.0 release. But the developers are using it to
manage its own source tree.
Something to keep in mind in the future.