From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 9 12:32:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7026116A4CE for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com (mailout07.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1189B43D1F for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:32:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@reifenberger.com) Received: from fwd06.aul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1AqG6a-0007cF-02; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:26:00 +0100 Received: from fw.reifenberger.com (ZYqhg+ZOYeA1MaWChnJdf4jSxGimfjfM26419LVs457oQx8OrI4o6j@[217.232.232.175]) by fmrl06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1AqG5J-26JWzo0; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:24:41 +0100 Received: from localhost (mike@localhost)i19IOf1L073679; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:24:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mike@reifenberger.com) X-Authentication-Warning: fw.reifenberger.com: mike owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:24:41 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Reifenberger To: Craig Boston In-Reply-To: <200402091130.05656.craig@tobuj.gank.org> Message-ID: <20040209185105.O72949@fw.reifenberger.com> References: <200402091130.05656.craig@tobuj.gank.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Seen: false X-ID: ZYqhg+ZOYeA1MaWChnJdf4jSxGimfjfM26419LVs457oQx8OrI4o6j@t-dialin.net X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:30:04 -0800 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion/CVS experiment summary X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:32:09 -0000 Hi, first, this seems to be a good analysis of SVN and a good starting point for thinking about moving away from CVS. On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Craig Boston wrote: ... > Comments on importing: It's SLOOOOOOOOOOW. It took 43.9 hours just for > src/sys, and this is a relatively speedy system! It starts out at a pretty > good pace, but the more commits it processes, the slower each one seems to > take. > ... Since this should be a one-time action, time should be less of a showstopper (as long its not endless :-) ... > * "Requires" Apache for the network server. There is a simpler CVS-like > network protocol, but it suffers from the same problems with access > control and locking and the like that CVS does. In order to overcome > those limitations, you pretty much have to use Apache/WebDAV. Some may > argue that this isn't really a negative, but it certainly doesn't go with > the K.I.S.S. philosophy. ... Apache is not strictly required. As far I've seen there is a "svnserve" server mode available. ... > * No cvsup equivalent yet. You can fairly easily use WebDAV to pull a copy > of the trunk or a particular branch, but it's not nearly as efficient as > the rsync algorithm. There's also no way to use WebDAV to grab a certain > date or revision like you can with cvsup -- you have to have the svn > client installed. In order to be even a contender to replace CVS, it > still needs a *FAST* and *SIMPLE* way to synchronize source with an > arbitrary tag or revision. ... For me this is the biggest showstopper for FreeBSD development. But since the whole repository is versioned instead of individual files, in an first step an CTM-equivalent should be easier ( posting something like `svnadmin dump --revision :` ...) or are there any native db4-tools for replication available?) Additionaly a bad point is: * SVN hasn't that many (fully integrated) clients than CVS (eclipse, ...) Many are coming/growing but its still not there. ... > Good points: > * Atomic commits across multiple files * Versions belong to the whole repository. That means that in case of changes you only need the revision number to know what changed in the whole repository. In the FreeBSD environment it's necessary to know the exact time or the affected files (and their individual revision numbers) * It's extremly well documented! It comes with an whole book of documentation. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Section the 4th - Conclusions > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Honestly, I don't think Subversion is quite ready yet. However, it is getting > _very_ close to being a viable alternative to CVS, for the needs of the > FreeBSD project as far as I know them. I'll definitely be trying it out for > some of my local projects that are currently stored in CVS. > Maybe we could see SVN as an equivalent to p4. Probably most of SVN current shortcomings are also true for p4 (no cvsup for p4 available, only an p4p service for some selected archs) Because SVN tries to be an CVS successor I found its usage very intuitive for an first-time-user like me. Furthermore I personaly don't like closed-source tools for open-source development (when alternatives are available) and would try to avoid p4 if possible. Bye/2 --- Michael Reifenberger, Business Development Manager SAP-Basis, Plaut Consulting Comp: Michael.Reifenberger@plaut.de | Priv: Michael@Reifenberger.com http://www.plaut.de | http://www.Reifenberger.com