[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Perforce comparison

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2007-10-01 06:53:31 CEST

On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 20:35 -0700, Jared Hardy wrote:
> One feature I forgot to mention, that has come up in previous WC
> refactoring threads, was a "mark for edit" command. This is similar to
> the Perforce "checkout" command -- their "update and get lock"
> equivalent, since all Perforce WC files implicitly require locks. This
> would allow clients to bypass recursive disk IO status comparisons,
> when listing modified files.

Yeah... I think the general consensus is (or would be, if people thought
about it) that "mark for edit" would produce wonderful speed for
recursive WC operations, and wouldn't be a hassle when you're using an
editor with a well-integrated svn mode, but would be a horrible pain in
the butt when you aren't.

I think if there were a WC design which made "require mark for edit and
get better performance" a checkout option in some beautiful elegant
fashion without unduly complicating the code base or UI, that would be
the best of both worlds. But that feels a bit blue-sky.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 1 06:53:41 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.