Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:23:46 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Public Access to Perforce? Message-ID: <20040829232346.GA95117@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <41325D89.5040806@freebsd.org> References: <200408160104.03708.chris@behanna.org> <20040826005527.GF54515@spiff.melthusia.org> <20040829223905.GB92947@dragon.nuxi.com> <41325D89.5040806@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 03:49:45PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > >Ask Perforce to port to 64-bit AMD64. That would allow them to have a > >lot more memory for their in-memory operations. > > Another possibility would be to switch from Perforce > to something like SVN. > > I'm not sure how it compares to Perforce, It is amazing the number of people that keep suggesting things like this and yet don't compare the two things they suggest to know how they really compare. For what the project uses Perforce for, SVN would offer nothing. > but > SVN has much better branch and merge support > than CVS does. Oh? SVN's own developers say "Currently, Subversion's merge support is essentially the same as CVS's." > It's also specifically designed > for use over slow networks, which would be a real > plus. SVN does nothing better than Perforce, yet removes the advantages of CVS. SVN doesn't remember past merges, so its branching is still embryonic compared to Perforce. Compared to CVS, SVN requires a connection to the main repo, and uses a heavier-weight network transport (requires Apache and HTTP-based WebDAV/DeltaV protocol). -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040829232346.GA95117>