httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ask Bjoern Hansen <>
Subject Re: 2.1 Fallout; httpd v.s. httpd-2.0
Date Sun, 01 Dec 2002 05:47:02 GMT
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:

>    I don't really buy this performance noise about branches.  In Darwin
> CVS, the Core OS team make a new branch *for every bug fixed* (my fault
> it's done that way).  Each branch is merged down individually as the
> changes are approved by the group, and is allows engineers to hack away
> and commit as they go without disrupting anyone else.  I'm talking
> about several hundred branches, and it's all running fine on some G4
> box in a lab.

On a smaller scale, but still bigger than the httpd-2.0 repository:
At one place I do work we have almost 10000 files in CVS where we
frequently make several branches a week.  It works fine.  Sure, CVS
branching isn't as nifty as what you have with perforce and probably
subversion; but much nicer than duplicating the repository left and

>    As Mark said, long-lived branches do take a hit, but that's why you
> branch off the maintenance release on leave active development on HEAD.

The above mentioned project actually did it the other way around for
the longest time.  Not so nice, but I got them to change it because
it's easier to manage with active development closer to HEAD, not
because it was too slow otherwise.

 - ask

ask bjoern hansen, !try; do();

View raw message