You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by pm...@users.sourceforge.net on 2003/07/10 09:16:04 UTC
smaller working-copies (was compressed or no text-base)
Hello everybody,
there have been some discussion in the past how to get a smaller working-copy.
Links are
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=subversion-dev&m=105311561626396&w=2
compressed text-base (zlib), is issue 908
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=908
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=subversion-dev&m=103578782825114&w=2
no text-base, is issue 525
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=525
and related too
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=subversion-dev&m=104849632010219&w=2
Now I'd like to know the current status of this discussion and/or possible
patches. I saw that both are registered as "Post 1.0" - but when is 1.0
planned, and when may this arrive??
I'm asking because my developers have each about 1GB data, therefore about 1GB
text-base. If it's possible to have no text-base it's a lot better for
performance, as the repository is on the same machine, and the file-cache
would not trash as much.
I'd be most grateful if somebody had a patch lying around for issue 525 -
possibly against subversion 0.25 when that comes around.
Alternatively I thought about making hardlinks of the files in the
.svn/-directories. AFAIK makes the lib_wc always a temporary file which is
then moved - right? so using hardlinks in the .svn-directories should not
hurt - right?
I don't trust the various editors, or I'd even hardlink the wc-files ... but
if an editor just writes to the file without deleting it (or using a
temporary file), it get's changed in every wc ...
Any suggestions? Help, please??
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: smaller working-copies (was compressed or no text-base)
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Michael Wood <mw...@its.uct.ac.za> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:16:04AM +0200, pmarek@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> > Now I'd like to know the current status of this discussion and/or
> > possible patches. I saw that both are registered as "Post 1.0" - but
> > when is 1.0 planned, and when may this arrive??
>
> Issues listed as "Post 1.0" means that the core developers aren't
> planning to work on it before then, but that if someone else comes up
> with a good patch it will be considered. Of course, if the patch is
> really invasive it might not go in because of the potential for bugs.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
The "Post-1.0" designation doesn't really say that a feature will be
worked on after a certain magic date, but rather that some developers
probably are unlikely to work on it until after other ("pre-1.0")
things are finished. It's about relative priorities, not absolute
dates.
As to when 1.0 will be out, why, later this week, of course...
<thud> :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: smaller working-copies (was compressed or no text-base)
Posted by Michael Wood <mw...@its.uct.ac.za>.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:16:04AM +0200, pmarek@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> there have been some discussion in the past how to get a smaller
> working-copy.
>
> Links are
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=subversion-dev&m=105311561626396&w=2
> compressed text-base (zlib), is issue 908
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=908
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=subversion-dev&m=103578782825114&w=2
> no text-base, is issue 525
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=525
> and related too
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=subversion-dev&m=104849632010219&w=2
>
>
> Now I'd like to know the current status of this discussion and/or
> possible patches. I saw that both are registered as "Post 1.0" - but
> when is 1.0 planned, and when may this arrive??
Issues listed as "Post 1.0" means that the core developers aren't
planning to work on it before then, but that if someone else comes up
with a good patch it will be considered. Of course, if the patch is
really invasive it might not go in because of the potential for bugs.
The problem is that libsvn_wc is, from what is normally mentioned on the
mailing list when this subject comes up, very complicated and could do
with a rewrite. But that rewrite is not planned before 1.0. i.e. you
could write up a patch and see if the developers are willing to include
it. If they feel it's too risky, you'll just have to keep it as a local
modification for a while.
[snip]
> Alternatively I thought about making hardlinks of the files in the
> .svn/-directories. AFAIK makes the lib_wc always a temporary file
> which is then moved - right? so using hardlinks in the
> .svn-directories should not hurt - right?
The problem is that text-base files and the actual files are not
identical in general. They may be a lot of the time, but if you're
using keyword substitution and eol translation they won't be.
> Any suggestions? Help, please??
Maybe the compressed text-base patch would be easiest to use for now.
--
Michael Wood <mw...@its.uct.ac.za>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org