[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] cvs, servers and stuff.



On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:19:28 -0400
Lyle Kempler <term-e1@twistedpath.org> wrote:

> Git is interesting and all, and may offer some development advantages,
> but I keep harking back to 2 statements made earlier in this thread: 1)
> that we're interested in performance, and 2) the developer base is
> pretty small vs the userbase.
> 
> In terms of (1), git may run slightly faster in some cases, but you're
> saying it's actually a little worse for checkouts (especially fresh
> ones, which I would not be surprised to find most users doing as they
> build or use Gentoo or whathaveyou).

As I said, I'm not convinced that GIT is actually slower, there may be a bottleneck on the client's machine and packing data does seem to improve the process. For a single checkout Git/git takes 1:51 vs "so long I got bored and killed it" and Git/http takes 1:03 vs 1:38. 

But as I said, I'm quite convinced one of my machine's HDDs is actually the bottleneck, which is why I'm asking for someone to give us some other data.
 
> More importantly, this isn't a thread about developers or even would-be
> developers complaining it's too hard to do what they want to contribute
> to the source tree due to the SCM choice. This is all about users
> checking out code that's in development.

Oh, I never said it was. From what I can see you guys are quite happy working with CVS. But it's never a bad idea to look at the alternatives. 

Even if you're not finding it too hard to do what you want now, you should check to see if other systems will actually let you do more. 

I'm just saying, in theory git can probably do more. The development model can be almost the same as with CVS or it can evolve into something completely diffrent. 

Whether that makes sense for Enlightenment, or whether you really care is ultimately your decision. One should choose the tool which is best suited for his work.

Cheers,
Eugen.