Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch commit on large trees ?

[Ollivier Robert]

According to Matthieu Moy:
> I'm not 100% happy with the way configuration work, but it's probably
> the best way to scale up with arch.

It has inherent limitations:
- changesets are generated per category so are not atomic across configs
- branch is done at the category level not config which makes branching
  cumbersome

So either you have large categories (# of files/dir.) but you lose the
nice granularity of c--b--v or you have a large number of c--b--v in your
config and it gets slow because a given commit/branch needs to iterate on
all stored c--b--v.

Unless there is a "baz commit" command that does it automatically for you,
I don't see configs used by many.

For trees such as the linux kernel or FreeBSD /usr/ports, I don't think it
usable.

> may want to have a look at the future Bazaar 2.0, AKA Bazaar-NG, who
> will have dramatically improved performances (but you'll have to wait
> a few months before being able to use it for production).

While the c--b--v concept is nice and helps one organising a given archive,
I think it is the main block to anything arch1 based so yes, bzr or
mercurial are probably more suited as alternatives.
-- 
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- address@hidden
Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005