Re: time to be serious about dropping CVS

Michael Snyder
2010-01-08T18:41:28Z

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.