[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: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-10-01 16:11:31 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> So please tell me that 'p4 edit' is something much more sane than 'svn lock'
>> on an svn:needs-lock file,
> What would "more sane" look like? It's exactly the same. Files are
> read-only by default. 'p4 edit' makes them read-write, and then the
> server tracks your pending changelist. If you don't 'p4 edit', then
> perforce doesn't believe the file is edited, no matter what.

I admit, I can't think of anything more sane. That's probably the best way
to do things if your goal is primarily to avoid having to crawl around
looking for changes to versioned files.

> Of course, the tradeoff is that commands like diff, status, and commit
> never need to scan the working copy for changes: the changelist is
> always defined at all times.

This is a tradeoff I am ever-so-quite happy to make. Why? Because avoiding
having to crawl around looking for changes to versioned files is *not* my
primary goal -- getting work done without my version control system getting
in the way is.

I realize, of course, that my personal, typical use-cases don't involve
gcc-sized trees where 'svn status' takes a half-hour to run or something.
But I rather like not paying workflow costs for optimizations I don't need.
   Others might need it -- that's cool. Make it optional, just as locking
is optional today.

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on Mon Oct 1 16:11:43 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.