jason marshall wrote:
> If the manual labor of using SVN is
> truly so high, then my recommendation will be to pay the licensing fee
> for Perforce, as the total cost/benefit is lower, and the in-house
> expertise is slightly better (a couple of developers, versus none).
Perforce may definitely be a better choice. It's designed to work best
over a LAN. Users have to tell the server they're about to edit
something, so the server is 'tracking' every working copy in existence.
The payoff is that perforce can instantly know which files have
changed, and the version of every file. It makes all the "discovery
crawls" done by 'svn up' and 'svn commit' unnecessary. Of course, the
tradeoff is that you always need to have the server close at hand, for
absolutely every operation.
> I encourage the SVN team to reassess their definition of 'reasonable
> working set', and consider if the tool as currently presented can meet
> reasonable performance metrics given that definition.
Perhaps you could tell us exactly how many files and dirs are in your
working copy. And, is this running on NTFS?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 27 05:05:37 2005