Tim Yamin wrote:

>On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:55:01PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>  
>
>>>CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well... 
>>>
>>>__Problem: CVS__
>>>
>>>CVS is one of the worst application ever created.  The portage tree
>>>needs to move to subversion.  A lot of the problems within the project
>>>would be solved by using a better SCM system.  The previous problems
>>>regarding the Live Tree and Developer Growth would be solved, IMHO, by
>>>just switching.  Branches Work.  Tags Work.  Reverts work.  Moves
>>>work.  I don't see any reason not to use it.  It just plain works.
>>>      
>>>
>>Have you tried using SVN for the portage tree?  I don't know if anybody
>>has recently, but in the past when people tried there were two
>>significant problems: SVN requires at least 2x the tree size for storage
>>on the local machine, and checkouts take something akin to an order of
>>magnitude longer than CVS.  The former is annoying, but liveable, but
>>the latter is a deal-breaker.
>>    
>>
>
>Speaking of which, has anybody done any tests with svk? (http://svk.elixus.org)
>And: http://svk.elixus.org/?WhySVK -- it would be interesting to compare
>checkout performance on it as well.
>  
>
Since it is derived from svn, I think it would be x times slower than svn.
Besides, why would we need a decentralized SCM?