[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Which cscvs to use?
From: |
John Goerzen |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Which cscvs to use? |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:58:52 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:48:17AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > address@hidden/cscvs--duff--1.0
> > address@hidden/cscvs--devel--1.0
> > address@hidden/cscvs--devel--1.0
> >
> > Which one do people suggest using? What would you consider as the
> > primary difference between them?
>
> majors was the original.
> cduffy has been going for performance.
> I've been going for usability and reliability.
Yours is the only tree I haven't seen yet, and sounds like what I'm after.
Here are the problems I've had with the others. Do you believe yours will
suffer the same problems as any of these?
* cduffy main tree: uses all available RAM (multiple GBs)
* cduffy devel tree: totla not implemented
* major tree: consumes huge amounts of disk space
(13GB and counting right now)
-- John
- [Gnu-arch-users] Which cscvs to use?, John Goerzen, 2003/09/12
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Which cscvs to use?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Which cscvs to use?,
John Goerzen <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, Andreas Fuchs, 2003/09/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, Andreas Fuchs, 2003/09/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, John Goerzen, 2003/09/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, John Goerzen, 2003/09/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, John Goerzen, 2003/09/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Which cscvs to use?, Andreas Fuchs, 2003/09/17