On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 19:35, Scott Lamb wrote:
> Kean Johnston wrote:
> >>>cheap, and lets face it, the vast majority of developers are likely
> >>>to be connected to a LAN, not a WAN.
> >>
> >>That may be true for ClearCase and other commercial RCSs, but it is
> >>definitely not true for Subversion, which intends to replace
> >>CVS in the
> >>open source world. I think you're in the minority here.
> >
> > Not sure how the intention to replace cvs in any way proves that most
> > developers likely to use SVN will be wan connected, not lan connected.
>
> Almost all open source projects have many developers who are not
> geographically close. They function over the Internet. Overwhelmingly
> CVS is used in this way, and given Subversion's goals, it would be
> unreasonable to assume it won't be used in the same way.
>
Okay, there is a difference between stating, almost all OSS people use
CVS, versus saying almost all users of CVS are OSS people.
Every development shop I've worked at, except one, uses CVS on every
project they do. The one I didn't has a home grown, because CVS wasn't
invented there (they are big on "only invented here" technology). Every
last one of them was on a LAN. There is a large user base of LAN based
CVS people, claiming there isn't is wrong. Everybody I know who
develops at a shop I know if uses CVS. I think that's roughly 10
different places. One of them is a spin off of a Fortune 500 company,
so they aren't all tiny places either.
I will agree with the first statement. You're going to have to give me
some hard facts on to get the second on to be true. Then I'm going to
question how you got those stats. They'd be interesting to see either
way.
My two cents, is that Subversion is over engineered for low bandwidth
situations, and it drives me insane how slow it is when run on the same
machine. It takes 2 hours to do things CVS does in 3-5 minutes when
used locally. It's been slow since the day I first found out about it
almost a year ago (it's gotten lots better, but it's still slow). It'll
continue to be slow for that use case until it correctness is had, and
speed is a priority over new features and bug fixes. All that said,
fast/easy branches, atomic commits are more then worth the wait, both
for 1.0 and for the time waiting at a command line.
I've never used CVS over a slow line, so I'm just not very appreciate of
just how cool it is I guess.
Thanks,
Kirby
--
Real Programmers view electronic multimedia files with a hex editor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 17 03:06:13 2002