Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:27:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Thomas Mueller <mueller23@insightbb.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion Message-ID: <4FFA5DA0.4020403@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54.9F.06836.97A4AFF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> References: <54.9F.06836.97A4AFF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/08/2012 20:05, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 17:21, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
>> there will be a means to do checkouts over http
>
> Doug Barton responded:
>
>> Anonymous users can also use the svn protocol.
>
> Does that mean svn will be brought into the base system as cvs, csup
> and portsnap already are?
No, and neither should it be. There is nothing unique to any FreeBSD
branch in svn, so it doesn't need to be in the base.
> Currently I use portsnap for the ports tree and csup for base-system
> source and doc (/usr/src and /usr/doc).
FYI, csup is faster than portsnap for medium to large amounts of changes
(and proportionally faster the older your tree), and with the -s option,
which it's safe to use routinely if you don't mess with the files) its
also faster than portsnap for small changes. ,
> I am also not sufficiently familiar with the internals of cvs and svn
> to say which is better and why
For users who only are checking sources out, they are comparable. If
you're making local changes svn is probably faster, but not enough to
make a large difference.
Where the benefits of svn come into play are primarily for committers.
Although, if we can get buy-in from the PTB to allow projects branches
in ports svn then testing things like the new X11 could be as simple as
one command to update your main tree, and then one more to merge in the
code to test.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FFA5DA0.4020403>