Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay support current proposal?

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 09:51 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 27/03/06, Ryan Phillips <rphillips@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org> said:
> > > Have you followed the threads in the past regarding using other
> > > version control systems for portage?  Some devs have done benchmarks
> > > and found that there are blocking issues with subversion, particularly
> > > because of its repo-wide revisions that prevent multiple commits from
> > > happening simultaneously.
> >
> > In actuality, Subversion does 98% of the commit in an initial
> > transaction, and the blocking only occurs in the last 2% with the FSFS
> > filesystem.  It really isn't an issue and shouldn't prevent us from
> > adopting it.
> 
> All svn commits are atomic, and that requires some kind of global
> lock. I'd say the (slight) performance penalty is worth it for that
> feature alone. I'd also point out that the KDE project have everything
> in a single svn repository and can manage >10,000 commits per month
> with no problems. There are various testimonials around from people
> claiming to be running svn on multiple GB repositories with >17,000
> commits a month.

Well, CIA seems to differ from your stats.

Gentoo: 8495 last month http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/gentoo
KDE: 7523 last month http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/KDE

Now, according to the stats, I would say that we have a similar commit
rate as KDE, though not all of ours are on the same repository and some
are on CVS and some are on SVN, so the stats aren't 100% accurate for
getting just the main portage tree.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]