Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Sure, I have maybe a dozen of my own machines between home and work;
> it's important to be able to do work on any of them. Thus, I wind up
> using filespace which isn't as cheap as raw disk.
>
> We've also had bad experiences with developers keeping working
> directories on local disk. One co-worker lost three months of effort
> when his workstation's hard disk crashed. His project was never
> completed.
>
> I hope this helps explain the kind of situation where doubling the
> size of a working copy is not feasible. It's unlikely that we will
> use Subversion as long as it imposes the base-text penalty on working
> copies.
Getting rid of ./svn/text-base/ will be a non-trivial amount of work,
and probably will have to come from a volunteer. Having it is
definitely a trade-off, but if we didn't use it, we'd have other
issues to contend with -- increased network usage, some currently
local operations becoming network operations, possibly somewhat
increased code complexity in the extra work to compensate for
text-base's absence.
Is text-base worth the cost? The answer depends on who you are, I
guess. We're aiming for a majority of developers, but it's probably
impossible to satisfy everyone. [It would be a pity, though, if you
in particular were unable to use Subversion for important work, since
you've contributed so much to it. :-( ]
One has to ask, how did this co-worker not commit for 3 months? The
pattern with most projects I've seen is to treat the repository as
gold, backing it up every day, and treat the working copies as trash
(or back them up yourself). For extended experimental development,
make a branch. I'm not sure his failure to back up his data should
affect the design of new software...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:44 2006