This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Moving to an alternate VCS
I also found the statement below that subversion shouldn't be made
for big projects utter bullshit, subversion was built to replace cvs,
with lower pressure on the filesystem for branches and updates. ( as for size ).
Also a number of projects have moved to using it without to much problem so far,
and a lot of projects are hosted on sourceforge lookalikes running
subversion in parallell with cvs.
Perhaps one should ask a bit on the subversion list ?
I do believe that they have additional pointers and information about the use
of subversion on different sites and such. ( Also the discussion on Mono and
subversion was in no way related to the size of the repository, it's on the
subversion mailing list, available as online archive for browsing ).
I don't want to be a proponent for a special approach, ( well I do, but not in this
case ), I only want to point out that a discussion with 'faulty' information
turns into religion, which we all know is responsible for all evil done in the
last couple of thousands years.
So let's have a check the facts campain ?
/ regards, Lars Segerlund.
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:19:02 +0100
Laurent GUERBY <laurent@guerby.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 17:07 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > I've read about how the Mono project did the move. They have got
> > about 50'000 files in version control, and there have been several
> > problems with it. Later, a Subversion developer said it's simply
> > not intended for a project that large.
>
> Would you mind providing precise URLs for your "several problems" and
> "no large project" claims? I couldn't find anything bad with google on
> the Mono migration.
>
> GCC has a bit less than 28000 files, so Apache and Mono are
> bigger and have been using svn for a while.
>
> Laurent
>
> PS: I have never used subversion myself.
>