From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FNnAl-0006ku-Eo for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:33:59 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2R8X6VZ026126; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:33:06 GMT Received: from callisto.cs.kun.nl (callisto.cs.kun.nl [131.174.33.75]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2R8TdwI032760 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:29:39 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by callisto.cs.kun.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A042E822E for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:29:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay support current proposal? Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:29:28 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060324193534.GA24818@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20060325230048.GA2691@olive.flatmonk> <20060327054353.GA9018@trolocsis.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20060327054353.GA9018@trolocsis.dyndns.org> X-Face: #Lb+'V@sGJ;ptgo5}V"W+5OCoo{LZv;bh,s,`WKLi/J)ed1_$0;6X<=?utf-8?q?700LVV/=3BLqPhiDP=5E=0A=09=27f=5Dfnv?=@%6M8\'HR1t=aFx;ePfp{ZQoBe+e)JOQ8T5*(_;mHY+cltLGq<;@$Y,=?utf-8?q?O=5C=24=0A=09Tm=23G6M?=,g![Q62J{na*S9d;R[^8pc%u\aiLqU@`kJtYl"^6pxdW Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3453254.5CRxdZsQ4S"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200603271029.35816.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: ec3a8c76-4784-4126-9773-f8d35f232cb9 X-Archives-Hash: 7e58fd7030d45088c8f9efd001ff64be --nextPart3453254.5CRxdZsQ4S Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 27 March 2006 07:43, Ryan Phillips wrote: > Aron Griffis 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. Indeed, subversion first uploads the stuff, only then creates a new=20 revision. In any case one does not want multiple commits at the same time=20 in any case. For full portage the problems are more likely to be with svn=20 update. One can expect there will be a lot more updates than commits. As=20 the commits done are fairly small, those should not be an issue. Updates=20 work on the whole tree however. Initial checkouts are worse, because they=20 require the head to be reassembled (IIRC). Head checkout could be cached=20 though (but I don't think that's done currently). Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart3453254.5CRxdZsQ4S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEJ6JvbKx5DBjWFdsRAnznAJ942tTIyRQWCAhdC+6hiYT9L7XfDgCguiN2 0bMcXIuOHKonwoVufl+4eBo= =D56M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3453254.5CRxdZsQ4S-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list