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

[Charles Duffy]

On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 13:39, John Goerzen wrote: 
> 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 :-)

Considering that it's $50 more for a hot-pluggable external
firewire/USB2 enclosure for that 200GB drive, I'm not certain as to the
validity of your counterargument.

> 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.

Okay, then you want a revision library that doesn't keep a bunch of
ancient versions in it. That's fine: Use a greedy, sparse revlib with a
hook script that deletes any overly-aged revisions. Also, configure your
editor to break hardlinks and start making use of the --link flags;
large trees like what you're dealing with are precisely what they're
made for.

In any event: If you're taking 10 minutes to do an operation and other
people are taking 3 seconds, you'd do well to take a close look at your
configuration to see what it is they're doing differently.


(Re _why_ revlibs are still useful in cases like yours, I'll leave that
to someone like Tom who's more qualified to answer).