| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision |
| versioncontrol:vcscvsproblems [2007/12/28 03:50] – PeterWemm | versioncontrol:vcscvsproblems [2022/10/07 02:57] (current) – Move bakeoff stuff under a single namespace KubilayKocak |
|---|
| |
| Adding perforce alongside cvs has mitigated some of the pressure and has generally given better quality code drops, ""but"" it isn't widely used by people that should be using it, and we lose (or marginalize) the history that is developed "over there". We need to bring this model out of second class status and into first class. | Adding perforce alongside cvs has mitigated some of the pressure and has generally given better quality code drops, ""but"" it isn't widely used by people that should be using it, and we lose (or marginalize) the history that is developed "over there". We need to bring this model out of second class status and into first class. |
| | |
| | ==== Primitive client ==== |
| | |
| | cvs has to constantly scan the checkout trees extensively. The server has to do tag searches to find out if a tag really exists or not. It has to scan every single file to find out if a tag operation is about to cause a conflict. A 'p4 sync' or 'svn update' on an up-to-date tree takes a moment (generally a second or so). cvs has to crawl the tree. It has to upload a shadow of the tree to the cvs server and compare. This is an unnecessary drain on time. |
| | |
| | cvs has absolutely no offline support, except for having an externally maintained complete copy of the repository. |
| | |
| | ==== No changesets ==== |
| | |
| | Tracking down all parts of a commit is a PITA to say the least. There is no cross referencing. If you want to find all parts of a commit for a MFC, cvs won't tell you. You'd better have a copy of the diff/patch you applied, or have some other means of generating the diff with external tools. |
| | |
| | ==== repocopy?? ==== |
| | |
| | Enough said. The fact that we have to go behind the back of the system is bad enough. Besides the turn-around time delays, the bigger problem is that it pollutes the chronological history for files. For example, if you check out src/sys/amd64 as of 1994, you see a bunch of files - long before "amd64" really existed. I never want to hear the word "repocopy" again! |
| |
| ===== Every day, we lose a little more ===== | ===== Every day, we lose a little more ===== |
| |
| Do you remember if RELENG_5_0_RELEASE was really from HEAD or RELENG_5? When was RELENG_5 created? Before 5.3 or 5.4? Did we have RELENG_4_3? or did we start doing that with RELENG_4_4? The cvs2xxx tools all got this wrong. | Do you remember if RELENG_5_0_RELEASE was really from HEAD or RELENG_5? When was RELENG_5 created? Before 5.3 or 5.4? Did we have RELENG_4_3? or did we start doing that with RELENG_4_4? The cvs2xxx tools all got this wrong. |
| | |
| | Back to [[/VCSWhy|VCSWhy]] |
| |