[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Another request for obliterate...

From: Tim Hill <tim_at_realmsys.com>
Date: 2005-04-18 19:27:13 CEST

OK, I agree that production disk costs are more significant. However, I
think the cost of an obliterate command would be higher. Why?
Experience! I've worked on large projects where the SCC system did have
such a feature -- and what a mess it caused. First, people would not
think before a check-in ("I can always obliterate it later"), so in fact
*more* junk was checked in than ever (now start thinking disk costs).
Second, every single obliterate caused horrible shock-waves. I would get
people to swear on their mother's graves that the obliterate would have
no side-effects and it *always* did. Builds broke. Diffs went into the
left field. Yuck.

Now, this was a large project, pretty well managed, and not in any way


Denny Page wrote:

>> 1. Recover disk space. Hmmm ... at $1/GB ???
> Have to disagree with you on this one. It may be inexpensive to
> purchase, but it's not at all inexpensive to maintain.
> Having large amounts of useless stuff around isn't great for
> performance either. Try doing svnlook history on the base of a repo
> with 50,000+ commits in it.
> I also have to disagree on general principal: just because a resource
> is inexpensive to purchase, doesn't mean that conservation of it
> should be ignored.
> Denny

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 18 19:32:18 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.