[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: (FS) operational question

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2001-01-01 00:28:48 CET

Greg Stein wrote:
>> If we do lazy updating on the client, then we get fragmentation. If
>> we want to update them all, then the server response grows larger.

(We're talking about the version resources here, not the version in
the entries file, yes?) What's the downside of fragmentation?

> It's that last sentence I'm not believing... Why does the server
> response have to get bigger? After an update, the client knows that
> *every* entity within the update's "purview" is now at the new
> revision number. But only entities that actually changed in the
> update need space in the server's response.

> You don't need to update those URLs; libsvn_wc can do it, you don't
> worry about it.

libsvn_wc cannot do it; a version resource URL is opaque and cannot be
operated on by the client. (If we assume Subversion conventions for
those URLs, breaking interoperability, then we don't need to store
version URLs in the first place. Although... our other bit of
non-interoperability is in "update" as well; we could declare that
particular operation to be non-interoperable.)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.