Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:39:40 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca>, Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: Patch to improve mutex collision performance Message-ID: <XFMail.020221233940.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020221162707.41880M-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21-Feb-02 Robert Watson wrote: > > On 21 Feb 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > >> Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes: >> > I'm not interested in using P4. I think it's a mistake. That is, I >> > think it is being severely overused. [...] >> >> Frankly, although I use Perforce myself for PAM work, I agree with Matt >> here. Most of what is going on in the Perforce should be happening on >> branches in our main repo, if only CVS didn't suck so bad at branching. >> >> I would like to suggest that we consider transitioning our main repo to >> Subversion. It's reasonably similar to cvs, and has all the features we >> need that cvs lack: metadata versioning, atomic commits, cheap >> branching... > > The problem is CVS. The solution is unclear. In the mean time, people > are using Perforce because it's an effective tool to do the job. Believe > me, I'd rather *not* be using two (or two and a half) different version > control and software source management schemes, but the practical reality > is that CVS cannot provide what I need to do what I do. Once there's a > reliable free version control system that can be the One True System, I'll > be extremely pleased to use it. Until then, well... :-) Yep, if subversion ends up being a p4 + decent diffs + annotate + repository replication (p4's vcp looks uber leet) + offline mode, then I'm all for it. :) It would be much easier to not be having to use p4 for work branches since I and others could just reverse integrate our changes into HEAD from the side branches. As it is, we have to create diffs and then patch them into CVS. This is part of the reason I think that p4 doesn't have the greatest diffs btw: you don't need diffs to move code from a work branch into HEAD, you can just reverse integ and it DTRT for you. Plus, if others want to see what you are up to, they can just check out your branch rather than having to pass diffs around. Basically, I don't think p4 was designed for people passing diffs around, folks are supposed to instead be looking at each others branches. However, that's not the way FreeBSD works atm (esp. since CVS is our real SCM), so we end up using p4 in possibly one of the worst ways possible. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.020221233940.jhb>