On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:11:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel <email@example.com> > babbled: > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings > > > <email@example.com> 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.
Description: PGP signature