On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Harvey, Edward
> Out of curiosity, can you name something specific, like "chrome has 50,000 files excluding .svn directories" or something like that?
You can checkout the chrome source yourself right now:
Subversion's own source tree is about 30MB (excluding .svn dirs):
approximately 1500 files and 175 directories. With a cold cache, it
takes me 5 seconds to run 'svn status', and with a warm cache it takes
Chrome's source tree is about 1.2GB (excluding .svn dirs). With a
cold cache it takes 40 seconds to run 'svn status' and with a warm
cache it takes about 25 seconds. This is not trivial.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Branko ╚ibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> Still, the idea that you have to explicitly tell your wc that you're
> modifying a file is abominable.
I used to think that too, but really... how is it any worse that
having to run 'svn add', 'svn rm', 'svn cp', 'svn mv', 'svn mkdir'?
:-) If anything, one could argue that svn is inconsistent in that we
have to explicitly yell our intentions to libsvn_wc about everything
we do *except* editing file contents. A number of svn newbies have
been confused by this, and we had to point it out in the book.
Honestly, the idea of an 'edit' command used to be appalling to me,
but after three years of using perforce I find that it's not a burden
at all. Not even noticeable. When working on code, the act of
"beginning edits on a file" just doesn't happen that often. It
happens on a handful of files exactly once when you begin the task,
and then that's it. The cost of running 'svn edit' (or C-x,c-q in
emacs) is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of time spent on
the coding and debugging. It becomes as transparent as all of your
other interaction with the version control system.
Received on 2008-10-28 20:03:45 CET