Re: text-base penalty: A proposed solution

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:19:26AM -0500, Scott Lenser wrote:
> I question the 100% penalty, although I see some increase. How much
> of these sizes is due to the sources (for which there is a 100%
> penalty) and how much of these sizes is due to binaries (which presumably
> wouldn't be checked in? Or are the binaries checked in for some reason?
>
Well it is still a 100% penalty on storing the sources, not including the
binaries. This can be a factor for shops that mirror a huge source tree on a
public server so that developers can debug components other than their own
without having to have sources for them. When you have a daily build
performed by the lab, and you need to archive the sources for each of the last
n builds, if you have to have text-bases, then you suddenly can only archive
n/2 builds.

Also at least one large shop that I know of checks in all the (static) library
files used in the build process, so that developers only have to checkout
their own component to build it (instead of having to build the whole
product). This can make a big difference.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson                    http://www.pilch-bisson.net
     "Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
     has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~