Public Access to Perforce?

[David O'Brien]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 03:49:45PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> >Ask Perforce to port to 64-bit AMD64.  That would allow them to have a
> >lot more memory for their in-memory operations.
> 
> Another possibility would be to switch from Perforce
> to something like SVN.
> 
> I'm not sure how it compares to Perforce,

It is amazing the number of people that keep suggesting things like this
and yet don't compare the two things they suggest to know how they really
compare.  For what the project uses Perforce for, SVN would offer
nothing.

> but
> SVN has much better branch and merge support
> than CVS does.  

Oh?  SVN's own developers say "Currently, Subversion's merge support is
essentially the same as CVS's."

> It's also specifically designed
> for use over slow networks, which would be a real
> plus.

SVN does nothing better than Perforce, yet removes the advantages of CVS.
SVN doesn't remember past merges, so its branching is still embryonic
compared to Perforce.  Compared to CVS, SVN requires a connection to the
main repo, and uses a heavier-weight network transport (requires Apache
and HTTP-based WebDAV/DeltaV protocol).

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)