Re: performance enhancement by working copy svn server

Oren Eini (Murphy & Associates) wrote:
> Um, do I count as someone who actually breaks working copies?
> That is not a highly used feature, I'll admit, and not one that I'll particulary miss.

We've also kicked around the idea for 'svn sever', which would let you
detach a part of a working copy. So the operation would still be
supported, it would just take one more step.

(Oh, and just a reminder that we bottom post on this list. Not a big
deal, but it does help to the flow of the conversation.)

-Hyrum

> Thanks for clarifying on its optionality.
> ________________________________________
> From: sussman_at_gmail.com [sussman_at_gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ben Collins-Sussman [sussman_at_red-bean.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:38 PM
> To: Oren Eini (Murphy & Associates)
> Cc: Chris Frost; Edward.Harvney_at_patni.com; dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: performance enhancement by working copy svn server
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Oren Eini (Murphy & Associates)
> <v-orene_at_microsoft.com> wrote:
>> From my perspective, I really like SVN's ability to figure what changed on its own, without having to be told.
>
> So do we all. That's why we've always talked about making the 'svn
> edit' model into an *optional* mode of working. Try using subversion
> with a 700MB source tree; running 'svn status' takes minutes to crawl
> the tree (along with commits and updates).
>
>> And having the metadata localized allows to do wierd things like manually merge WC temporarily, or easily take a smaller piece of the WC and move it elsewhere.
>
> That's what we've been telling ourselves for 8 years; it turns out
> that nobody actually ever breaks working copies into small portable
> pieces. And the price we pay for scattered metadata is huge.