From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3c8a1ddc13ecb354
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: pautet@email.enst.fr (Laurent Pautet)
Subject: Re: Configuration Management for Ada on Unix
Date: 1996/06/02
Message-ID: <4os7at$6n7@scapin.enst.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 158051896
sender: pautet@scapin.enst.fr
references: <4nvm27$e68@gde.GDEsystems.COM>
 <31AADEFA.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <4oeqp1$1mn@scapin.enst.fr>
 <m27mtrf0zx.fsf@harvey.cyclic.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
organization: Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jim Kingdon <kingdon@harvey.cyclic.com> wrote:

>I've done a certain amount of tweaking CVS performance, and the time
>involved in applying deltas does not dominate.  The big performance
>bottlenecks are (1) figuring out what files to operate on.  I would
>guess that by now this has been tweaked in CVS to the point where
>fairly fundamental changes (which are not out of the question) will be
>needed for further improvements, and (2) getting to the point of being
>ready to actually apply deltas for a particular file.  In the current
>implementation, this requires way too much fork/exec and other system
>calls, and could be improved a lot in relatively straightforward ways.

Point (1). You're right this is an issue, but unfortunatly, a given
solution has always its advantages and its drawbacks, and there is no
clear difference between the different systems. At the opposite, the
difference between SCCS and RCS is so huge (1 to N) that it should be
mentionned.

Point (2). The less you have patches to apply, the less you require
fork system calls, don't you ?
-- 
-- Laurent