Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die

>>>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS
>>>>> repository is only 260MB,

So apparently this is a limitation of svn2cvs. It uses a lot more space to
represent tags and branches than would be required if they had been created in
svn directly. Unfortunately it's a hard problem to solve any better than it
is.

> Markus Bertheau wrote:
>
>> Here's what the subversion book has to say about that:
>>
>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/svnbook-1.1/ch05.html#svn-ch-5-sect-1.2.A
>>
>> We use svn over ssh and recently switched to fsfs because of the umask
>> problem and because read-only access to bdb causes writes to the
>> database.

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:

> This just reinforces Tom's well-made point about maturity/stability. I rejected
> using SVN on another project a few months ago for just this sort of reason.

I'm not sure what this says about maturity, you realize read-only access to
CVS also does writes to the repository? There are patches to change this
floating around but it's never been merged "upstream" because there is no
"upstream" maintainer any more. I guess if you want mature software you can't
get any more mature than using orphaned packages.

--
greg