On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:03:47 +0100
Niels Skou Olsen <nso@manbw.dk> wrote:
> With regard to ease, I can't see it being any easier than a simple
> 'svn up' command. With regard to disk space, you say yourself that
> it's a working copy of modest size. And besides, disk space is cheap
> these days. :-)
>
My point is, would it be very difficult to alter svn up to
recognise/update an exported tree. I want to use "svn up" as a command,
I want to use it in an exported tree. Bandwidth doesn't bother me, disk
space in this instance does. I don't see the point of keeping two copies
of the same thing, one of which is never used.
> > i.e. "Whats the point of keeping two copies of the repo on a disk
> > when this wc will *never* be modified directly?".
>
> The point is, as I see it, to minimize the number of server
> round-trips, and when server round-trips *are* necessary, then only
> exchange diffs with the server. This gives the best overall
> performance.
I will ask the question I was trying to get at in the biginning.
Would it be difficult to alter svn up to
1) recognise it is in an exported tree.
2) grab a number from a file in a .svn directory.
3) assume the number grabbed in 2 is a revision number.
4) transfer only the files that have changed since the revision in 3.
5) update the number in the file in the .svn directory to the current
revision number.
???
A yes or no from a dev is what I'm after, not anopther way of doing
this.
I apologise if I sound exasperated. I am. I am not asking for
workarounds to what I see are problems (I could simply rm -rf the tree
and svn export it every time), I am trying to see if the modification I
suggested above would be possible, and then asking someone more familier
with the source to do that modification, in order to make my life
easier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 8 16:38:06 2004