John Peacock <jpeacock@rowman.com> wrote on 05/20/2005 10:05:36 AM:
> Folker Schamel wrote:
> > Status and commit of a larger tree cost the same time
> > with TSVN and with command line SVN on windows.
>
> Then why does TSVN put the cart before the horse and bring up a
> requester to create the log message before the commit is ready? Why
> have I _never_ seen a CLI user complain about the length of time it
> takes for the editor to come up during a commit? Granted I haven't been
> reading the users list in a while, but I'm fairly confident that only
> the TSVN (and possibly Subclipse) users have this concern about
performance.
Hopefully my other reply explained this better.
> Here's a test:
>
> 1) Check out the same tree twice
> 2) Make the same changes in both trees (preferrably deep so there is
> some serious tree-walking going on)
> 3) Commit once using the standard Windows Subversion CLI and time how
> long it takes before the editor pops up
> 4) Do the same thing in TSVN and wait until the filelist is complete
> 5) Tell us what you found
>
> > You definitely should take the performance aspect very seriously!
>
> I'm not saying that it shouldn't be taken seriously. I'm only saying
> that the non-standard way that TSVN has chosen to implement commits
> should not force the rest of the user base to accept a poorer
> implementation. While I agree that it should be taken into account, but
> I violently disagree that a feature for an add-on should drive
> development of the core project.
>
> >
> > 99% of all SVN users work on windows;
> > and 99% of all windows SVN users use TSVN.
>
> This is pure fantasy and I'm not going to even bother to refute it.
Folker's comments were pretty inflammatory and unnecessary, so I do not
blame you for getting exercised over them. But please do not paint all
Windows and GUI users with the same brush. I also do not think we should
consider TortoiseSVN or Subclipse as "add-on's". That just sounds very
dismissive. I always have viewed the Subversion core as a library, and
they just so happen to also provide the CLI as a default UI and consumer
of this library. In my opinion that should not mean that the needs of the
CLI should outweigh the needs of a GUI in terms of the capabilities and
performance of the library. They should be treated as peers and the needs
of both ought to be balanced and considered in the design decisions that
are made for the library.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 20 16:17:54 2005