[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [darcs-users] Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
    On Sat, February 19, 2005 4:10 am, Patrick McFarland said:
    > On Friday 18 February 2005 07:50 am, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Erik Bågfors wrote:
    >> > RCS/SCCS format doesn't make much sence for a changeset oriented SCM.
    >> The advantage it will provide is that it'll be compact and a backup will
    >> compress at best too. Small compressed tarballs compress very badly
    >> instead, it wouldn't be even comparable. Once the thing is very compact
    >> it has a better chance to fit in cache, and if it fits in cache
    >> extracting diffs from each file will be very fast. Once it'll be compact
    >> the cost of a changeset will be diminished allowing it to scale better
    >> too.
    > In the case of darcs, RCS/SCCS works exactly opposite of how darcs does.
    > By
    > using it's super magical method, it represents how code is written and how
    > it
    > changes (patch theory at its best). You can clearly see the direction code
    > is
    > going, where it came from, and how it relates to other patches.
    > Sure, you can do this with RCS/SCCS style versioning, but whats the point?
    > It
    > is inefficient, and backwards.
    >> Now it's true new disks are bigger, but they're not much faster, so if
    >> the size of the repository is much larger, it'll be much slower to
    >> checkout if it doesn't fit in cache. And if it's smaller it has better
    >> chances of fitting in cache too.
    > Thats all up to how the versioning system is written. Darcs developers are
    > working in a checkpoint system to allow you to just grab the newest stuff,
    > and automatically grab anything else you need, instead of just grabbing
    > everything. In the case of the darcs linux repo, no one wants to download
    > 600
    > megs or so of changes.
    >> The thing is, RCS seems a space efficient format for storing patches,
    >> and it's efficient at extracting them too (plus it's textual so it's not
    >> going to get lost info even if something goes wrong).
    > It may not even be space efficient. Code ultimately is just code, and
    > changes
    > ultimately are changes. RCS isn't magical, and its far from it. Infact,
    > the
    > format darcs uses probably stores more code in less space, but don't quote
    > me
    > on that.
    >> The whole linux-2.5 CVS is 500M uncompressed and 75M tar.bz2 compressed.
    > The darcs repo which has the entire history since at least the start of
    > 2.4
    > (iirc anyways) to *now* is around 600 to 700.
    >> My suggestion is to convert _all_ dozen thousand changesets to arch or
    >> SVN and then compare the size with CVS (also the compressed size is
    >> interesting for backups IMHO). Unfortunately I know nothing about darcs
    >> yet (except it eats quite some memory ;)
    > My suggestion is to convert _all_ dozen thousand changesets to darcs, and
    > then
    > compare the size with CVS. And no, darcs doesn't eat that much memory for
    > the
    > amount of work its doing. (And yes, they are working on that).
    > The only thing you haven't brought up is the whole "omgwtfbbq! BK sucks,
    > lets
    > switch to SVN or Arch!" thing everyone else in the known universe is
    > doing.
    > BK isn't clearly inferior or superior to SVN or Arch or Darcs (and the
    > same
    > goes for SVN vs Arch vs Darcs).
    > (Start Generic BK Thread On LKML Rant)
    > Dear Everyone,
    > I think if Linus is happy with BK, he should stick with it. His opinion
    > ultimately trumps all of ours because he does all the hard maintainership
    > work, and we don't. The only guy that gets to bitch about how much a
    > versioning system sucks is the maintainer of a project (unless its CVS,
    > then
    > all bets are off).
    > Linus has so far indicated that he likes BK, so the kernel hacking
    > community
    > will be stuck using that for awhile. However, that doesn't stop the
    > license
    > kiddies from coming out of the woodwork and mindlessly quoting the bad
    > parts
    > of the BK license (which, yes, its non-free, but at this point, who gives
    > a
    > shit).
    > IMO, yes, a non-free versioning system for the crown jewel of the FLOSS
    > community is a little... odd, but it was LInus's choice, and we now have
    > to
    > respect it/deal with it.
    > Now, I did say above (in this thread) that darcs would be really awesome
    > for
    > kernel hacking, especially since it's inherent support for multiple
    > branches[1] and the ability to send changes from each other around easily
    > would come in handy; however, darcs was not mature at the time of Linus's
    > decision (and many say it is still not mature enough), so if Linus had
    > actually chosen darcs, I (and other people here) would be now flaming him
    > for
    > choosing a versioning system that wasn't mature.
    > Similarly, if he had chosen arch, everyone would have flamed him for
    > choosing
    > a hard to use tool. With svn, he would have met flamage by the hands of it
    > being too much like cvs and not supporting arch/darcs style branch
    > syncing.
    > And if he stayed with cvs, he would have been roasted over an open fire
    > for
    > sticking with an out of date, useless, insane tool.
    > And if he chose anything else that I didn't previously mention, everyone
    > would
    > have donned flame retardant suits and went into the fray over the fact
    > that
    > no one has heard of that versioning system.
    > No matter what choice Linus would have made, he would have had some part
    > of
    > the community pissed at him, so it is ultimately his choice on what to use
    > because hes the only one going to be happy with it.
    > [1] The Linux Kernel is looks like a forest instead of just a few
    > branches.
    > (End Rant)
    > So, in summary, anti-BK posts on the lkml are retarded. Oh, and I
    > apologize if I've put any words in your mouth, Linus.

    Hey Patrick,

    Good post. One nit though is that the current thread has no anti-BK
    aspect to it at all. It's just a request that other tools be usable too
    and that the BK zealotry be kept to a minimum.

    Darcs sounds really interesting; will make sure to learn more about it soon.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.031 / U:5.344 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site