Anthony Metcalf <anthony.metcalf@anferny.ath.cx> writes:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:29:18 +0100
> Niels Skou Olsen <nso@manbw.dk> wrote:
>
>> Come to think of it.. If OP's goal is to keep a huge working copy
>> updated with the least possible amount of network traffic, then just
>> do the obvious; make a normal working copy with 'svn co' and keep it
>> updated with'svn up'. This way you pay up front with a full 'svn co',
>> but you pay only once. All 'svn up' after this will be as cheap as can
>> be.
>
> No OP's (my) goal is to keep a copy of a modest repo up to date with the
> least effort, and least disk space. Low bandwidth would be nice, but
> disk space is the primary concern, followed by ease, and not having to
> remember a different command for this server.
With regard to ease, I can't see it being any easier than a simple 'svn up'
command. With regard to disk space, you say yourself that it's a working
copy of modest size. And besides, disk space is cheap these days. :-)
> i.e. "Whats the point of keeping two copies of the repo on a disk when
> this wc will *never* be modified directly?".
The point is, as I see it, to minimize the number of server round-trips,
and when server round-trips *are* necessary, then only exchange diffs with
the server. This gives the best overall performance.
Best regards,
Niels
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 8 16:06:58 2004