That would seem to require locking most of the repository while doing
these determinations and would require scanning the whole tree before
sending anything. The way that CVS works now, it just goes through
the directories sequentially, and calculates what to do as it goes. I
believe this should lead to much less locking and much better use of
available network bandwidth since it doesn't have to collect its data
before sorting it.
Chris
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:10:16AM +0200, Han wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One feature I have been missing with cvs popped into my mind. And it
> isn't on your feature list.
>
> I think it would be very practical if a cvs-update would be in
> chronological order in stead off alphabetical order. So first the newest
> files are sent.
>
> This would be a much faster way to upgrade a large source tree.
>
>
> Groetjes, Han.
> --
> For all ya |\ _,,,---,,_ No good deed goes unpunished.
> untamed Daemons /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ -- Clare Boothe Luce
> OpenBSD 2.9 |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
> on a i386 '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:30 2006