Re:Still All on One Server: Perforce at Scale (2011) [pdf]
by jounker on Thursday July 26, 2018 @03:45AM
(#17615777)
Google replaced perforce with Piper, a perforce compatible system written in-house. This system was not based on git.
There were systems that allowed you to mirror portions of piper into local git repo, giving you a git-like experience on top of piper, but the underlaying system was piper and not git. (At this point my knowledge is 4 years out of date.)
Re:Still All on One Server: Perforce at Scale (2011) [pdf]
by toast0 on Thursday July 26, 2018 @11:59AM
(#17618469)
Yes, during the work day, many people would like to commit their changes, often during the same timeframe. Every step takes a second or two, so there's plenty of room to get conflicts (I moved closer to the git server, so now I have an advantage!)
CVS was nice(ish) since changes were independent, any number of people could check in code to limit of io parallelism. Svn was nice, the server would wait for a lock and if my changes didn't conflict, they would be applied after the rest of the pending commits. Git is a PITA, large companies build elaborate systems to queue commits, but we're not big enough to use that yet.
Re:Still All on One Server: Perforce at Scale (2011) [pdf]
by toast0 on Thursday July 26, 2018 @02:34PM
(#17619736)
Pretty much yes. We like to push to master, and then push to production. Some teams cherry pick changes to a deployment branch and deploy from there instead of master.
Edit to add: We may be "doing it wrong", but this is the least effort way to do centralized development.
Re:Still All on One Server: Perforce at Scale (2011) [pdf]
by asah on Saturday July 28, 2018 @01:06PM
(#17633962)
No seriously, consider git branches. It's gotten 100x easier to create, manage, and merge branch pull requests. Most projects I join these days in fact "lock" master and you are forced to develop in branches.
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...
There were systems that allowed you to mirror portions of piper into local git repo, giving you a git-like experience on top of piper, but the underlaying system was piper and not git. (At this point my knowledge is 4 years out of date.)
Various customers with repos in the PB range these days (metadata TB).
Disclaimer: current Perforce employee
That's a claimer, rather than a disclaimer!
"we went from seeing the server blocked routinely for up to ten minutes at a time in 2005 to gaps of thirty seconds to a minute in 2010..."
CVS was nice(ish) since changes were independent, any number of people could check in code to limit of io parallelism. Svn was nice, the server would wait for a lock and if my changes didn't conflict, they would be applied after the rest of the pending commits. Git is a PITA, large companies build elaborate systems to queue commits, but we're not big enough to use that yet.
Edit to add: We may be "doing it wrong", but this is the least effort way to do centralized development.