Re: Version control systems for debian devlopment
Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:23:23PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 08:48:40AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
>> > - it was *very* slow to get the initial repository when I wanted to
>> > check out the devel version of arch itself.
>> Yes, I also noticed that applying patches is slow, and checking out
>> the newest version tends to involve applying lots of patches. This
>> is addressed (somewhat) by the ability to specify that certain revisions
>> should be cached.
> Hmm, I might have to reconsider on this one. arch's patching might
> be slower than a cvs update, but a larch get seems to be faster than
> a cvs checkout. At least with arch, I've switched to a model where I check
> out the latest source in a temporary directory in order to a day's work.
> With cvs, I always kept project trees around because a full checkout
> would be so slow.
A revision library helps a *lot*. If you're trying to use arch, and
you're not using a revision library, then you aren't seeing it at its
At least one operation is most definitely absurdly slower than it
should be: making a simple branch can be horrifically slow, because
the implementation of one of the suboperations (merge-points) is
horrifically slow. Otherwise the performance is reasonable, I think,
and the principle of the implementation strikes me as OK in efficiency
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org