[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch.
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch. |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:42:16 -0800 (PST) |
> 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
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Miles Bader, 2004/02/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Robin Farine, 2004/02/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., John Goerzen, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Charles Duffy, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., John Goerzen, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Charles Duffy, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., John Goerzen, 2004/02/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Stefan Monnier, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Miles Bader, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Aaron Bentley, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch.,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., John Goerzen, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Charles Duffy, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., John Goerzen, 2004/02/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Robin Farine, 2004/02/27
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Why we might use subversion instead of arch., Andrew Suffield, 2004/02/20