[geeks] Subversion, two weeks of usage

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 @ 18:38 -0400, Andy Wallis said:

> On Aug 28, 2006, at 10:45 PM, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> 
> > I was using it at several shops for nothing but source files, none  
> > very
> > large, and it had horrible performance.
> I think the performance would depend more on how well you modify it  
> for your own processes and how much you modify your processes for  
> PVCS. I do know that when it was brought in house in the late 90s, a  
> lot of hacks had to put on it to make it support our needs. It is  
> given that it needs to be on a standalone box, with plenty of DASD  
> and fast processors.

In other words, throw hardware at bad software, and it improves a
little.

CVS and Subversion require almost no configuration work, and run well
even on old hardware.

I could understand PVCS needing hardware and a lot of work if the job
was really big, but why does it suck so much even on small projects with
good hardware?

Aside: where I was working, PVCS ran on a top-of-the-line Compaq
Proliant server with 4 Xeon CPUs, with maxxed out RAM and DASD.  For the
time (1999), it was about as fast as a Windows PVCS server could get
without going exotic.


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["There is no such thing as security.  Life
is either bold adventure, or it is nothing -- Helen Keller"]