Re: cvs update vs. git pull

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



René Moser <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]