Re: Time and Bandwidth wasting (was: Space wasting)

[Tobias Herp <to...@gmx.de>]

Alvin Thompson schrieb:

> actually, that the admin directory took too much space was never my 
> argument

True. It would have been a good idea to put your argument  into the 
subject line.

> Craig L. Ching wrote:
>
>> This thread is so very tiresome. (...) This is such a non-issue and 
>> you're starting to sound like a broken record here.  Please don't 
>> take offense, we get what you're saying, but we don't agree with 
>> you.  I think it's time to just agree to disagree here.
>
It's. Time. To. Just. Agree. To. Disagree. Here.

I fully agree with Craig. I have read many reasons here why it is not at 
all a trivial thing to compress the .svn directory, at least if a 
serious impact on portability, write performance, processor time and 
stability is to be avoided. Processor time doesn't really count on 
client PCs nowadays, but is still (and will ever be) a precious thing 
for servers. To avoid errors, KISS: "Keep it simple, stupid!" (no 
offence meant; this is the original long form of this acronym I know). 
Or, to cite Albert Einstein, who was asked why he used normal soap to 
shave: "Two soaps? That is too complicated!"

A programmer who changes read-only files in the .svn directory should 
know exactly what (s)he is doing, or must not complain. Usually there is 
a reason why something is write-protected.

A tool (or script) which is not able to ignore write-protected files in 
a special directory, which even feature a special extension, is not 
up-to-date, since every revision control system uses its special directory.

There are developers around here who have done very much to make 
subversion what it is today, and they have explained why they consider 
the compression thing a really bad idea. If you insist in your idea, do 
it yourself, and see if your change makes it to the trunk. But please, 
stop wasting their time.

Tobias