From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23842 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2010 18:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 23823 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2010 18:41:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:41:22 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F4241061; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:41:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0EEC9A27; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:41:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B477AD9.2020701@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:41:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20090624) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Muldoon CC: Joel Brobecker , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: time to be serious about dropping CVS References: <20100101080137.GP2788@adacore.com> <4B472BDC.1030301@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B472BDC.1030301@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed 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/msg00076.txt.bz2 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.