Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch.

[John Goerzen]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0600, Charles Duffy wrote:
> He didn't say it would take 200GB, but that storage is cheap.

I was disagreeing with him on that too :-)

[ snip ]

> > tla commit takes me on the order of minutes.  This on a dual 2GHz Xeon
> > machine with 15000RPM SCSI drives.
> 
> Because you're ignoring all the performance-enhancing features out of
> some (best I can tell) untested belief that they'll take too much space.

Well, here's my complaint really:

I have almost never any need to go back to old versions.  And I'm
satisfied with it taking a long time when I do.  Why then should I need
to have a revision library?  I already have the current version checked
out (and in fact, tla already makes a second copy of it through its
pristine tree).  I don't understand what benefit a revision library
could possibly have when one's usage pattern is commit, commit, commit
on one machine and reply, replay, replay on another.

Perhaps what I'm saying is that tla should behave better than it does in
these cases where, speaking at least theoretically, a revision library
should provide no benefit.

-- John