Remy Maucherat wrote:
It's not really a UI thing for me. One feature I use often are revision
lists for a particular file, to be able to tell where a bug has been
introduced (I then do diffs between revisions). It seems with SVN I have
to retrieve the full revision list for the repository (which will take
hours). If someone can offer a workaround for this problem, then I'll
support a move to SVN :)
I have been doing some quick tests and my totally unscientific,
statistically invalid results are that cvs annotate seems to be about 7
to 8 times faster than svn blame (50s compared with 7s) and cvs log
seems to be about 2 to 3 times faster than svn log (16s compared to 7s).
The svn release notes show a number of modifications to improve the
speed of response for a number of commands. The svn team does seem to be
moving things in the right direction.
I guess the question is can we live with this magnitude performance
drop? It is also worth bearing in mind that there is no sign of any
scope for negotiation in the CVS switch-off date of 1/1/2006.
I would suggest the following way forward:
1. Highlight our performance concerns to infra
2. Request a test migration of something we don't use very much (eg
Watchdog)
3. Run some tests so we have some more realistic performance figures
4. Review the results
5. Decide what to do next once we see the performance results
If people think this is sensible, I am happy to do 1 to 3 and publish my
results so we can do 4 and 5.
Thoughts?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
