From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 13:07:00 GMT
Subject: Re: cvs update vs. git pull
Message-ID: <AANLkTikPWfNhL1HxYQdtdPeJpHxrm5qDkkwbXFM6MAV2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqhblss65x.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:54, Matthieu Moy
<Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> René Moser <mail@renemoser.net> writes:
>
>> One problem we have is, that if there is a commit to cvs while the cvs
>> update of the build job is running (and this takes 20 minutes), then we
>> get some inconsistence, the build will fail.
>
> Git will also bring a big performance improvement here. The duration
> of the "git pull" will be mostly O(number of modifications since last
> pull), not O(total number of files).

A while back I tried converting a huge (~40k directories) CVS
repository to SVN and Git. Both CVS and SVN took around 10 minutes to
cvs/svn up. git clone took around 8 minutes but each pull was around
5-15 seconds (I/O and network bound).

They eventually picked Bazaar for non-technical reasons. But yeah,
Git's much faster to upgrade than CVS/SVN.