[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: performance CVS Vs SVN

From: surendra M <surendrahere_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2006-11-06 21:27:52 CET

Agree.
But our build process heavily depends on tags. It'll checkout/update all the
specified tags
and prepares a build file. And if I adopt to SVN instead of CVS I may need
to change my
build process too. How easy it is to migrate tags from PVCS/CVS to SVN ? And
are we
able to migrate as expected? If got chance please look for the thread
"*simulating
tags like* *CVS*" posted by me.

On 10/28/06, Dmitri Colebatch <dim@colebatch.com> wrote:
>
> We're about to change from CVS to SVN and one of the major factors in the
> time taken to lay a tag. We have a large CVS repository with several years
> worth of archives. Tagging takes minutes as opposed to seconds for SVN.
>
> cheers
> dim
>
>
> On 10/29/06, Kevin Greiner <greinerk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/27/06, surendra M < surendrahere@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having an idea of migrating my repository from PVCS to CVS or SVN
> > > I did an evalution.
> > > I could see some mail posts discussing the performnace of CVS Vs SVN.
> > > But they were carried out on old version of CVS and SVN.
> > >
> >
> >
> > When my company recently switched to version control software, CVS was a
> > complete non-starter due to lack of rename support and non-atomic committs.
> > It doesn't matter how much faster CVS is, if it doesn't do what you need.
> >
>
>

-- 
regards
Suren
Received on Mon Nov 6 21:28:47 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.