Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Philip Martin wrote:
>
>
>>"Erik Huelsmann" <e.huelsmann@gmx.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>>I've been thinking about this, but I'm not sure this will "greatly improve
>>>>svn status" because most files are note modified in a typical situation.
>>>>So, for most files, you'll get equal file sizes and a forced
>>>>byte-by-byte-comparisons. Or do I miss something?
>>>
>>>Nope, you're entirely correct.
>>
>>Really? Take something like status, at present every modified file
>>causes the working file to be read/translated. When I use Subversion
>>most of my mods change the file size, so the size check should bypass
>>the need to read/translate those files. The resut should be that
>>status rarely needs to read/translate working files, while at present
>>it needs to read/translate every modified file. That should make a
>>big difference if the files are not cached in memory.
>>
>>
>
> My assumption is that only a small nuber of files are modified in the
> typical case. Say my WC have 1000 files and I modified 10. Then I put my
> WC on a FAT memory stick so the timestamps get screwed.
I would say the "put on stick" strays from the "typical case." Your assessment of
what does/would happen may be correct, but I don't think this case should drive
svn development.
If the "put on stick" step causes a significant problem, then I would look to some
solutions outside SVN, like using tar to preserve the file attributes. or format
it with an fs other than fat. (yeah, I know... fat is the best fs for sharing
between Win and the rest of the world.)
Carl K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 30 00:47:34 2005