Re: cvs update vs. git pull

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: May 28, 2010, 09:54 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqhblss65x.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <d876ae6b75ab8d9debe5b97f84a4386a.squirrel@resmo.ch>

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).

> 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?

Actually, if you use almost anything but CVS (i.e. even SVN can do that), you will get "atomic commits", i.e. a commit touching multiple files is either seen as completed or not seen at all.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/