On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 09:51 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > On 27/03/06, Ryan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Have you followed the threads in the past regarding using other > > > version control systems for portage? Some devs have done benchmarks > > > and found that there are blocking issues with subversion, particularly > > > because of its repo-wide revisions that prevent multiple commits from > > > happening simultaneously. > > > > In actuality, Subversion does 98% of the commit in an initial > > transaction, and the blocking only occurs in the last 2% with the FSFS > > filesystem. It really isn't an issue and shouldn't prevent us from > > adopting it. > > All svn commits are atomic, and that requires some kind of global > lock. I'd say the (slight) performance penalty is worth it for that > feature alone. I'd also point out that the KDE project have everything > in a single svn repository and can manage >10,000 commits per month > with no problems. There are various testimonials around from people > claiming to be running svn on multiple GB repositories with >17,000 > commits a month.
Well, CIA seems to differ from your stats. Gentoo: 8495 last month http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/gentoo KDE: 7523 last month http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/KDE Now, according to the stats, I would say that we have a similar commit rate as KDE, though not all of ours are on the same repository and some are on CVS and some are on SVN, so the stats aren't 100% accurate for getting just the main portage tree. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
