Re: performance enhancement by working copy svn server

Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
> Making "svn edit" a required operation is asking for trouble, because
> it's too easy to work around the requirement. The only viable option
> would be to use FS change notifications on systems that support it,
> but since there aren't too many of those, we shouldn't rely on such
> things to get acceptable performance.

There's a lot of FUD flying around in this thread.

(Understandably, since it's a big topic and few people have time to
follow it in the detail that would be required not to fall victim to
FUD... The Subversion dev@ list somewhat resembles the U.S. presidental
campaign in that respect, I guess.)

Anyway: no one is talking about making 'svn edit' a required operation.
No one has ever proposed tat, as far as I know. It would be optional.
Whether it would someday be the default or not, I don't know.

As for it being too easy to work around it (when the client
configuration is set up to "require" 'svn edit' in the first place):

The experience of other popular VC systems that already have this
requirement answers that concern. When there's real-world data out
there, we are relieved of the burden of speculation!

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-13 19:09:20 CEST