Re: merge branch vs. commit trunk

Jack Repenning <jrepenning@collab.net> writes:

> When we say "cheap copy," we mean that the act of making the copy
> (branch) is cheap. Once it's made, further work on the branch isn't
> any more or less cheap than working on trunk.

Correct. If you had made all your changes on the branch,
progressively, you still would have had to a single 80 meg merge to
the trunk. And that merge would have been: apply 80 megs of local
changes to your 'trunk' working copy (by comparing with the branch),
then commit. The final commit still would have been 80 megs of data.

Now, as to why the commit is grinding to a halt... that's a separate
topic. Come step into our 'performance/scalability' trouble center,
take a number and a seat. We have our best men working on it. :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Sep 23 18:05:30 2003