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

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



On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel <onefang@gmail.com> babbled:

> 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?

its not the space - its the extra rsync times having to scan 2x as many
files. :)

but - if snc server-side is a big improvement for anon access - i will be
willing to forgo such performance in the name of better anon

-- 
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)    raster@rasterman.com
裸好多
Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本)