Re: time to be serious about dropping CVS

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Phil Muldoon wrote:
> 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.

FYI, my cvs operations are usually pretty snappy.
I live and work on the US west coast, and operate
during daylight hours.

time cvs -q update == 14 seconds for gdb "module" top level.