From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 9 04:27:13 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E5F1065673 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 04:27:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9425153242; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 04:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FFA5DA0.4020403@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:27:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120624 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Mueller References: <54.9F.06836.97A4AFF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> In-Reply-To: <54.9F.06836.97A4AFF4@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Ports tree migration to Subversion X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 04:27:13 -0000 On 07/08/2012 20:05, Thomas Mueller wrote: > On 07/08/2012 17:21, Thomas Abthorpe wrote: >> there will be a means to do checkouts over http > > Doug Barton responded: > >> Anonymous users can also use the svn protocol. > > Does that mean svn will be brought into the base system as cvs, csup > and portsnap already are? No, and neither should it be. There is nothing unique to any FreeBSD branch in svn, so it doesn't need to be in the base. > Currently I use portsnap for the ports tree and csup for base-system > source and doc (/usr/src and /usr/doc). FYI, csup is faster than portsnap for medium to large amounts of changes (and proportionally faster the older your tree), and with the -s option, which it's safe to use routinely if you don't mess with the files) its also faster than portsnap for small changes. , > I am also not sufficiently familiar with the internals of cvs and svn > to say which is better and why For users who only are checking sources out, they are comparable. If you're making local changes svn is probably faster, but not enough to make a large difference. Where the benefits of svn come into play are primarily for committers. Although, if we can get buy-in from the PTB to allow projects branches in ports svn then testing things like the new X11 could be as simple as one command to update your main tree, and then one more to merge in the code to test. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection