sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....
- From: Tony Smith <tony AT smee.org>
- To: Sergey A Lipnevich <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
- Cc: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:43:42 +0000
On Monday 06 January 2003 6:13 pm, Sergey A Lipnevich wrote:
> Tony Smith wrote:
> >>4) inter-file branching with lazy copy mechanism: yes, one of the
> >>centerpieces of the Subversion architecture
> >
> >Hmm... where did they get that idea from? Immitation is the sincerest form
> > of flattery I suppose.
>
> They use a slightly different paradign: there's no "integrate" (my
> apologies if I got it wrong) operation on a file, only directories can
> be copied like this.
(You got it right) Oh, that's interesting. Does that mean that there's still
the whole 1.2.1.1.2.1 thing underneath it all?
> Also, their metaphor of the "versioned file system"
> is something Perforce I believe doesn't articulate explicitly.
Right - the "versioned file system" thing is actually more a Rational
ClearCase idea. You can make a versioned FS with Perforce if you want to
using P4FTP and FTPFS though. It's quite simple but effective.
> >>5) Scalability: look at the list of publis Subversion repositories
> >>http://subversion.tigris.org/svn-repositories.html, the largest there is
> >>5 GB (Subversion is slower than CVS as many observed -- no comparison
> >>with Perforce had been made -- but they're working on this)
> >
> >FWIW Perforce is *much* faster than CVS for the majority of actions and is
> >just plain faster for the rest. There are some performance figures here
> >http://www.perforce.com/perforce/reviews.html for those that are
> > interested. And these benchmarks are entirely fair and reproducible - not
> >Mindcraft-style! The links to the docs on the hardware and test procedures
> >are on the page above.
>
> Good for you. How many years have Perforce been in development compared
> to Subversion?
Of course it's more (Perforce was started in 1995), but I'm not sure it's as
relevant as one might think. The point is that performance is something you
design in at the beginning. Systems rarely speed up when new features are
added.
> Surely, examples like GNOME, Apache, or NetBeans being
> maintained in CVS, tell us that it's _possible_ to use even such a
> "limited," compared to Perforce, system, for very large and convoluted
> projects.
Yes of course you can do it, it's simply a less pleasant user experience. You
can do SCM with pen and paper if you want to but it's not much fun.
> Nowhere I said Perforce is a bad product or a bad player as a company.
> It actually compares very favorably to many SCM systems, and the company
> policies and development directions look very good, if a bit too modest
> for your feature set and capabilities (with addition of distributed
> versioning, you could compete very easily with Rational tools I think,
> and Rational has a bad reputation in UNIX world which you could use to
> your advantage).
Why thank you kind sir :-) We do indeed delight in taking business from
Rational and it's happening more and more often these days.
> At the same time, I guess I don't have to explain you
> why CVS, Subversion, and maybe BitKeeper, will continuously outrun
> Perforce in the number of open source and free software projects
> maintained using these SCMs.
No, and that's not a problem for us. We wish them the very best of luck
whatever system they choose to use. We're just offering a free (beer)
alternative if people want to use it.
> Also, don't forget the ratio of community
> developers to the developers hired to produce Perforce. It's not a war,
> it's survival of the fittest.
Ah well there's a whole new thread in that paragraph alone. If you want to
continue this off list I'd be happy to expound but I suspect people might get
a bit bored if we keep this going on the list.
Tony.
-
[SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Eric Schabell, 01/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Sergey A Lipnevich, 01/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Tony Smith, 01/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Sergey A Lipnevich, 01/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Tony Smith, 01/07/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly...., Sergey A. Lipnevich, 01/07/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Tony Smith, 01/07/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Sergey A Lipnevich, 01/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Tony Smith, 01/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] Just to let you know we are not completely silly....,
Sergey A Lipnevich, 01/06/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.