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

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



On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:11:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
<raster@rasterman.com> wrote:

> 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. :)

That's not a server side issue.  It's only the developers working copy
that has this issue.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature