Re: Subversion branch deltification policy is more space-hungry than CVS

John Peacock <jpeacock@rowman.com> writes:
> Have you factored out the relative inefficiency of cvs2svn (if that is
> indeed how most people are converting their repositories)? I know
> that there are some attempts to streamline the process, but that
> people with lots of branches and tags were seeing [very] inefficient
> usage due to the way that cvs2svn was structured (well, in fairness,
> also due to the way that CVS was designed too).
>
> When I convert my primary CVS repository to SVN in a couple of weeks,
> I'll try both vcp and cvs2svn as a comparison (don't really have time
> right now).

Good question, hadn't even thought of that.

The only reliable way to test the overhead of Subversion's branch
storage is to start two repositories out empty, and make the same
series of commits, branches, and branch commits to both.

(Max may well have done this, however.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 25 07:12:51 2004