Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

freebsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#11

Post by idea »

cperciva wrote: post #6
jrockway wrote: post #2

Why Subversion? The only reason for using Subversion is that you're already using Subversion; for "new conversions" it's widely agreed that anything but Subversion is the right thing to use. I don't want to sound cynical, but could FreeBSD be avoiding Git because Linus wrote it?

could FreeBSD be avoiding Git because Linus wrote it? No. FreeBSD is avoiding Git because Git isn't capable of handling a project the size of FreeBSD. As I see it, the major reasons for choosing SVN were (a) it was possible to convert FreeBSD's 14 year old, 1.8GB src repository to SVN and have things mostly work (there are a few bits which didn't convert properly, but nothing major), (b) there are SVN gurus willing t…

I'm not convinced about the perceived difficulty to learn git et al. You and the other FreeBSD developers are OS hackers. You're telling me it's hard for them to learn a dvcs in a few days? Look at all the Rails developers and users. They seem to have few problems switching to git.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#12

Post by swombat »

idea wrote: post #11
cperciva wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

could FreeBSD be avoiding Git because Linus wrote it? No. FreeBSD is avoiding Git because Git isn't capable of handling a project the size of FreeBSD. As I see it, the major reasons for choosing SVN were (a) it was possible to convert FreeBSD's 14 year old, 1.8GB src repository to SVN and have things mostly work (there are a few bits which didn't convert properly, but nothing major), (b) there are SVN gurus willing t…

I'm not convinced about the perceived difficulty to learn git et al. You and the other FreeBSD developers are OS hackers. You're telling me it's hard for them to learn a dvcs in a few days? Look at all the Rails developers and users. They seem to have few problems switching to git.

Agreed. It took me all of an hour to learn to use git. We switched our project over one Saturday morning, haven't looked back.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#13

Post by rglullis »

idea wrote: post #11
cperciva wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

could FreeBSD be avoiding Git because Linus wrote it? No. FreeBSD is avoiding Git because Git isn't capable of handling a project the size of FreeBSD. As I see it, the major reasons for choosing SVN were (a) it was possible to convert FreeBSD's 14 year old, 1.8GB src repository to SVN and have things mostly work (there are a few bits which didn't convert properly, but nothing major), (b) there are SVN gurus willing t…

I'm not convinced about the perceived difficulty to learn git et al. You and the other FreeBSD developers are OS hackers. You're telling me it's hard for them to learn a dvcs in a few days? Look at all the Rails developers and users. They seem to have few problems switching to git.

I don't think that cperciva said that it is difficult to use it. It's not just because DVCS are in fashion that they must be adopted, that's his point.

I'm a happy mercurial user, but that does not make me look down on someone who uses CVS/SVN/Perforce and is okay with it.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#14

Post by gcv »

cperciva wrote: post #10
swombat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a repository that grew to about 1.5 gig on github recently (due to hundreds of copies of SWF binaries). Neither git nor github even hinted at having any issues with large repos. I'm down-modding the above because it sounds like FUD. Git has no issues with large repos as far as i'm aware, and based on my own experience.

We had a repository that grew to about 1.5 gig on github recently (due to hundreds of copies of SWF binaries)... I'm guessing that you have a fairly large average file size here, so your 1.5GB Git repository contains far fewer files than FreeBSD's 1.8GB CVS repository. That said, the strongest evidence that Git can't handle a project the size of FreeBSD comes from Linus himself in a discussion last year about KDE: '"…

That sounds reasonable, even to a Subversion-hater like me.

That said, I just took a quick look at the web-based CVS browser for the FreeBSD source repository, and I wonder if splitting the project up into a few smaller should have been considered more carefully? For example, ports go into one repository, the kernel goes in another, documentation into a third, and so on.

I'm not a FreeBSD guy, so it's easy for me to make outrageous claims, but I just wonder if inertia was in play here. Reorganizing the source repository to perhaps clarify it and also take advantage of everything git (or Mercurial, for that matter) has to offer, might have made sense. CVSup and the related toolchain will probably need substantial changes to support anything which isn't CVS anyway. In any case, could you give some supporting evidence for your statement that splitting up the repository is not an option for FreeBSD?

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#15

Post by nertzy »

teamonkey wrote: post #4
mark-t wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably avoiding git because it's GPL. They're awfully picky about that sort of thing. But yes, I had the same reaction. There's bound to be some modern VCS that would be better for them.

Yeah, a quick look at Wiki shows that there aren't many VCS compatible with the BSD license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_...

The license of the tools you use does not affect the license of the products you produce, so this is irrelevant.

I can use Photoshop to make a graphic, and then release that graphic as part of a BSD-licensed package without any trouble, since I own the copyright on that graphic.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#16

Post by jrockway »

Andys wrote: post #5
jrockway wrote: post #2

Why Subversion? The only reason for using Subversion is that you're already using Subversion; for "new conversions" it's widely agreed that anything but Subversion is the right thing to use. I don't want to sound cynical, but could FreeBSD be avoiding Git because Linus wrote it?

Well, its still a nice upgrade from CVS. (Atomic transactions!)

It's also a downgrade. No branches or tags.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#17

Post by idea »

rglullis wrote: post #13
idea wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced about the perceived difficulty to learn git et al. You and the other FreeBSD developers are OS hackers. You're telling me it's hard for them to learn a dvcs in a few days? Look at all the Rails developers and users. They seem to have few problems switching to git.

I don't think that cperciva said that it is difficult to use it. It's not just because DVCS are in fashion that they must be adopted, that's his point. I'm a happy mercurial user, but that does not make me look down on someone who uses CVS/SVN/Perforce and is okay with it.

Neither do i. And i'm not arguing that FreeBSD should adopt git or another dvcs. But the time to learn them is imo not an argument against them.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#18

Post by Hexstream »

cperciva wrote: post #10
swombat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a repository that grew to about 1.5 gig on github recently (due to hundreds of copies of SWF binaries). Neither git nor github even hinted at having any issues with large repos. I'm down-modding the above because it sounds like FUD. Git has no issues with large repos as far as i'm aware, and based on my own experience.

We had a repository that grew to about 1.5 gig on github recently (due to hundreds of copies of SWF binaries)... I'm guessing that you have a fairly large average file size here, so your 1.5GB Git repository contains far fewer files than FreeBSD's 1.8GB CVS repository. That said, the strongest evidence that Git can't handle a project the size of FreeBSD comes from Linus himself in a discussion last year about KDE: '"…

"If Linus himself doesn't think that Git works well for a unified project the size of FreeBSD or KDE, who are we to argue?"

Sure is a big departure from that git presentation he gave at Google were he was basically saying anyone who doesn't use git is necessarily a clueless retard.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#19

Post by DenisM »

Hexstream wrote: post #18
cperciva wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a repository that grew to about 1.5 gig on github recently (due to hundreds of copies of SWF binaries)... I'm guessing that you have a fairly large average file size here, so your 1.5GB Git repository contains far fewer files than FreeBSD's 1.8GB CVS repository. That said, the strongest evidence that Git can't handle a project the size of FreeBSD comes from Linus himself in a discussion last year about KDE: '"…

"If Linus himself doesn't think that Git works well for a unified project the size of FreeBSD or KDE, who are we to argue?" Sure is a big departure from that git presentation he gave at Google were he was basically saying anyone who doesn't use git is necessarily a clueless retard.

I watched it on google video and even then he admitted that large projects need to be split. Funny part is that Mercurial is int he same boat - they also do not allow partial checkouts.

Where I work we 80Gb trees (sans history, that is) and idea of everyone syncing the whole 80Gb on all of their machines quickly kills any discussions around alternative source controls.

Re: FreeBSD starts switch from CVS to Subversion

#20

Post by cperciva »

jrockway wrote: post #16
Andys wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, its still a nice upgrade from CVS. (Atomic transactions!)

It's also a downgrade. No branches or tags.

Maybe you have a different definition of "branches or tags", but in the new SVN repository we have separate "head", "stable/7", "stable/6", "releng/7.0", "release/7.0.0", etc. trees -- so whether SVN calls them "branches" or not, we have the same functionality with respect to stable and release branches as we had with CVS.
Post reply on HN