From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 18 16:00:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8BC16A4D0; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:00:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from itchy.rabson.org (mailgate.nlsystems.com [80.177.232.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2442343D46; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:00:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from ns0.nlsystems.com (ns0.nlsystems.com [80.177.232.243]) by itchy.rabson.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7IG0b6k003185; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:00:37 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) From: Doug Rabson To: Robert Watson Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:00:55 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408181700.55424.dfr@nlsystems.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75.1, clamav-milter version 0.75c on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Richard Coleman cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Public Access to Perforce? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:00:43 -0000 On Wednesday 18 August 2004 16:51, Robert Watson wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Doug Rabson wrote: > > On Wednesday 18 August 2004 16:31, Robert Watson wrote: > > > A first test for any open > > > source replacement for CVS in the FreeBSD project is that it be > > > able to import our current history and workload efficiently. I > > > believe last time this was attempted with Subversion, the > > > importer ran at least a month before the person trying it gave up > > > :-). > > > > For what its worth, the latest cvs2svn converter is at least two > > orders of magnitude faster than when this test was run. I have a > > private CVS test repository which used to take several days to > > convert on a fairly slow machine. With the latest convertion script > > it only takes a few hours. > > Last I looked, my primary concerns with Subversion were: > > - Cost to import full FreeBSD history. > > - That it promised the multi-way branching and merging in a future > release, but did not yet have it. > > Do you know how things look with respect to the second issue? Branching is cheap and fast. Repeated merging is not explicitly handled by subversion but in using it for my own work, I've found that the transaction oriented nature of subversion makes repeated merging between branches quite easy (in comparison to being pretty near impossible in cvs). All I do is keep track of the transaction number of my last merge and use that as the start of the transaction range to merge next time around. The svk system (which layers on top of subversion) does support repeated merges as well as distributed repositories. The mechanism used to support merges (storing extra state in properties) could probably be used in subversion itself. It certainly won't be in subversion 1.1 but it doesn't seem unreasonable that it might be included in 1.2.