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
atypical.
--Tim
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