[boost] Re: Moving from CVS to Subversion? (was: Checking out latest...

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-02 17:20:41

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:17:21 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
>
>> I'm all for being methodical, but honestly if boost development 
>> ground to a halt for a couple of days I think we'd survive.
>
> Sure, but what if the new environment is actually worse in some significant
> way? (yes, more FUD from a fuddy duddy). But the fact is, there won't be any
> going back to CVS once we are converted. 

True.

>> That archiving software ** sucks **.  Subversion is, in my 
>> experience, much better engineered.
>
> Fair enough.  Why did we choose it?  

We didn't. It's the default with Mailman and nobody has been able to
find something better that the OSL guys were willing to set up.

> How come we didn't test it before changing?  Seems like we have the
> same level of process in this new selection...

No, the process is being discussed here first in part so we can head
off problems.

>> > Maybe we need to have a coordinated test where we all agree to
>> > pull down the whole repository at a certain time -- just to make
>> > sure the machines/network/software is really up to the task?
>> 
>> That's a bad test IMO.  If we all hit CVS at the same time, how good
>> do you think the response time will be?
>
> I don't know what the response would be with CVS and it doesn't
> matter.  

Sure it does, if you want to prove that SVN will be worse.

> My point was that CVS/Sourceforge has been mostly handling whatever
> the concurrent load is today.  Yes, there's a stuck lock, slow
> updates

and commits, and logs, ...

> for some, but most of the time it works (what exactly was the CVS
> issue list driving this, because I can't really recall any
> discussion on the list about CVS disatisfaction?).
>
> What little I know about sourceforge is they replicate CVS across
> servers to support anonymous access, have big network connections,
> etc.  

The slowness we're seeing in CVS would be there regardless of how much
server support we had.  CVS just wasn't designed to scale to projects
the size of Boost.  Much of the slowness when you update occurs
entirely on your local machine.

> If we knew what the average and peak load on the repository
> was we could easily test that out that subversion/OSL would meet our
> needs.  But since we don't know I was just suggesting a test that
> would give us information.  If 10 people can't operate on the
> respository at the same time then I'd be worried about converting.

When you say "we all agree to pull down the whole repository at a
certain time" I didn't think you were talking about only 10 people,
doing the typical things that they might do.

>> > Maybe there are other tests we should do before jumping ship?
>> 
>> Name 'em and we can consider them.  Otherwise it's just FUD.
>
> Well I guess it's all just total FUD since you already decided the
> one test I suggested to see if subversion can handle load is a bad
> idea.  
> No sense in testing anything, I guess nothing can go wrong...

I don't see how that follows.  There are useful and un-useful
experiments.  I can't make a judgement that your proposal is in the
latter category without causing all experiments to be useless?

>> OSL has already done several conversions; it's not that complicated.
>
> Well then it shouldn't be a big deal to put up a converted test repository for
> us to play with.

True.

> Since this has apparently already been decided 

It has not; I only said we're talking about it.

> and no actual testing is required to make sure the new environment
> will be better

That's not getting any funnier the more you say it.

>  -- resolving an unspecified set of issues with the current
> environment -- I suggest we get on with the work of conversion
> immediately:

We're not ready yet, and there's plenty to discuss.

> -- changing all the boost web pages that talk about CVS

Premature, IMO.

> -- telling all the users to download and learn subversion clients

Might be a good idea anyway.

> -- creating SSL accounts (or whatever) at OSL for all boost
> developers

Premature, IMO.

> -- setup anonymous access to the repository

Premature, IMO

> -- converting the repository

Might be a good idea anyway.

> -- getting regression testing switched over
>
> Since this will cost 'almost nothing' in time and energy from the boost
> community lets draw up a time table and move on.

Still not funny.

> Jeff
>
> ps: And in case you didn't catch it in the tone, the last 2 paragraphs are
> drenched in sarcasm...

It's pungent.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com