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

[Tom Lord]

    > From: John Goerzen <address@hidden>

    >>> 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.

What tagging method are you using and what does a cold-cache
`inventory --source --both --all --ids > /dev/null' take?

I'm hoping that the inventory will be reasonably expensive and that
you're using explicit tags since there are changes in the queue for
the 1.3preX series that will likely make a rather large difference.

-t