From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16462 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2010 12:58:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16437 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2010 12:58:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:58:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o08Cw62p012057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:58:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o08Cw5QW006658; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:58:05 -0500 Message-ID: <4B472BDC.1030301@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:58:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: time to be serious about dropping CVS References: <20100101080137.GP2788@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100101080137.GP2788@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 On 01/01/2010 08:01 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Happy New Year! > > Since I started using SVN, and even more so since I started using git, > I have found that using CVS is very inconvenient, bordering on unbearable. Beyond the usual arguments and cons about CVS, the one thing that really bites is that CVS always has to talk to a remote server. It is not distributed, so there is no local repository copy. On a small project that is ok, but currently diffs with GDB CVS take 12-15 minutes. Commits are the same. The same operations in GIT take seconds. It is even worse in the US 8am - 6pm hours. This might be because I live in the UK, and the server is on another continent. Maybe folks closer to the server get a snappier response. But if there was problem that a distributed version control system was meant to fix, it was this. I don't know why CVS is so slow. Whether it is CPU bound on the sourceware machine, or the bandwidth at the hosting site is at capacity .. who knows? I'm not even sure how to find out. But would SVN solve any of the problem relating to performance? My preference is for GIT, simply because of the speed. Cheers, Phil