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 1FZZxd-0007uF-Mj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:53:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k3SKpQmw008752; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:51:26 GMT Received: from watcher.kimaker.com (c-67-169-29-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.29.182]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3SKge3E010193 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:42:41 GMT Received: by watcher.kimaker.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 5E29675858D; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:42:40 -0700 From: Ryan Phillips To: Donnie Berkholz Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union Message-ID: <20060428204240.GD63263@watcher.kimaker.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ryan Phillips , Donnie Berkholz , gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20060428171453.GB62035@watcher.kimaker.com> <20060428185501.GA22506@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20060428192434.GB22373@woodpecker.gentoo.org> <44527A01.3080506@gentoo.org> 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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+B+y8wtTXqdUj1xM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44527A01.3080506@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 0c0a8ff3-1a75-4447-ab74-abb8ee78df5a X-Archives-Hash: 1e55e77f88211cd6d25c7ec399c7a37c --+B+y8wtTXqdUj1xM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Donnie Berkholz said: > Tim Yamin wrote: > >Speaking of which, has anybody done any tests with svk?=20 > >(http://svk.elixus.org) > >And: http://svk.elixus.org/?WhySVK -- it would be interesting to compare > >checkout performance on it as well. >=20 > I've been planning to do a more detailed comparison of all the popular=20 > SCM's out there for probably 6 months, but I just don't have the time=20 > right now. If someone wants to pick this up, please let us know. >=20 > Recommended reading: http://www.keltia.net/EuroBSDCon/slides.pdf and=20 > www.keltia.net/EuroBSDCon/paper.pdf >=20 > SCMs to test: cogito - Not practical * the lots of little files doesn't scale well with the size of the portage tree * In addition, git only allows checkins from the project parent. A deal breaker in my opinion cvs - Branching sucks - Merging is terrible - File deletes are bad - Atomic Commits svn + Atomic Commits + Merging/tagging/brancing is a simple "copy" operation http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04.html + lots of benefits http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.intro.features.html there is more I'm sure people can come up with - 2x Drive space darcs - haskell dependency - doesn't work on some architectures - IMHO, deal breaker svk - not a contender, it is subversion. if someone wanted to use svk with the subversion tree they could; it is transparent to any other. -ryan --+B+y8wtTXqdUj1xM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEUn4/6cLeDQrpxL8RApbsAJ4pCiggr7lGvu2KCuOGOSSVHpZnugCdFRn1 sPWzdMvbakCQY7UPIM3WrXw= =UEjg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+B+y8wtTXqdUj1xM-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list