Scott Palmer wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Josh Pieper wrote:
>
> >I think one of the advantages of this declared edit feature is that it
> >allows status/diff gathering to be blazingly fast. 'svn status' can
> >take absurdly long periods of time on large working copies. If there
> >were an option to have read-only checkouts and have a 'svn edit'
> >command make them read+write, Subversion could keep track of which
> >files had been edited and significantly speed up status, diff, commit,
> >etc. It would make svn usable on projects where working on only
> >portions of a large tree is not practical.
>
> Replace "svn edit" with "svn lock" and don't you have the same basic
> feature (minus the potential speedup for the status command) ???
No, the point is that you do not want an exclusive lock. You just
want to give svn some inside information on which files you are
editing. It is not uncommon for 'svn status' to take tens of minutes
to run on large working copies, even if you have only changed one or
two files. If the client side tools kept track of which files you had
told it you were editing, all of those checks (status/diff/commit)
would no longer depend upon the size of the working copy, just on the
size of the changes you had made.
-Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 3 00:57:09 2005