This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes:
> I think if one is going to try and promote a source management system,
> I'm pretty sure performance alone would be enough to convince a lot of
> people.
>
> After using bitkeeper for just a week or two, I nearly stopped doing
> much GCC development simply because CVS is such a dinosaur. It's like
> driving a model-T on a US interstate highway or the autobahn. It's
> truly that painful to use.
>
> So if arch can provide the same kind of improvement, promote that part
> of it.
I think it can't, at the moment.
However, that's an interesting point: what do you do with CVS and with
BitKeeper? What operations are performance-critical for you?
(My intuition is that arch has concentrated on operations which are
relatively uncommon, such as branch merging and the like, relying on a
revision library for operations which seem to me more common---like
"cvs log", "cvs diff", and the like (or rather their moral equivalents
in a configuration based CM). The catch is that the revision library
is expensive in disk terms---arguably not a problem, since disk space
is cheap, but even so. But my intuition may be wrong, so what about
CVS seems slow to you, compared with BitKeeper?)