kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> 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).
Rather than factoring things out of cvs2svn, I simply used pure svn tools:
1. Create svn repository
2. Add a few test files on /trunk
3. Copy a branch
4. Commit some branch modifications
5. Examine the repository. Observe that there are multiple fulltexts stored
per file. One for HEAD of /trunk, one for HEAD of /branches/foo.
> 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.)
I haven't done the equivalent CVS operations to compare numbers, but the
simple fact that there are excess fulltexts shows that the size will be
greater.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 26 23:14:04 2004