Re: cvs update vs. git pull

From: Tor Arntsen <tor@spacetec.no>
Date: May 28, 2010, 09:46 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTinw1rlvcdHB8kEbpt-kK5Bjzf1aLGPhlPwDz6GC@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d876ae6b75ab8d9debe5b97f84a4386a.squirrel@resmo.ch>

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:21, René Moser <mail@renemoser.net> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Hi
>
> I use git since a while for my own projects (how surprise).
>
> The company I work for still uses a CVS(nt), and this sucks, time to
> changed that. We have a use case we often have problems with. If git would
> solve this problem, I would really have a good arg for the managers.
>
> The codebase managed by CVS is quite huge and therefore we have daily and
> nightly builds.

So do we, where I work.

> 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.

Yes. That's how it works with CVS. We try to work around that problem by using automatic tags ('nightly'-something) set individually on each module, common for the whole repo, and then we 'cvs export' by tag instead of cvs update. This works reasonably well (and is reproducible due to the tag), but is not anywhere as fast as git would be.

> So the question is, if we would use git, this inconsistence would not be
> possible because the git pull will get the state of the sha1. Right?

Git commits are atomic, so you won't see that inconsistency problem with git. So, Right.

-Tor