[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] cvs, servers and stuff.



On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
<raster@rasterman.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings <mej@kainx.org>
> babbled:
> 
> > On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
> > Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> >
> > It's not true.  SVN requires a lot more overhead (including Apache
> > with SVN and DAV modules), uses a BDB backend (you remember your
> > love of BDB, right?), and requires DOUBLE the amount of disk space
> > for a checkout.  Yes, I said double.  Furthermore, branching and
> > tagging
> 
> checkouts from svn are just ridiculous. agreed. but its the server
> side i am asking about. as i said - i HEARD it is easier on the
> server - i am after details from those having been there, done that.
> yeah - bdb - oh yay. lets break format all the time.. ;)

I think the backend issue is one of those "they fixed that since"
issues I was talking about.  These days you get a choice of backends.

Yes, your local working copy takes up double the disk space, because it
keeps a pristine copy of what was checked out.  While this takes up
more space for the source code on a developers box, it has it's
advantages.  How many developers are that tight for space that they
can't spare some for one more copy of the source code?  It really
becomes a case of which particular trade off do you want?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature