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

Re: Branching(copying) over merge and commit

From: Berlin Brown <berlin.brown_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2005-11-05 01:07:48 CET

From what I understand, we are using BDB and the copies are very
speedy. I heard hard-links are used as opposed to a full copy of
everything? I know our codebase including the branches and tags is
probably little over half a gig maybe even a gig. Pretty big? And
doing a copy has been really simple. While merging takes a lot of
effort, but at times the goal of getting a branch up-to-date seems the
same (between copying and merging). Except for what someone already
mentioned; you lose track of the original contents of the branch,
which would defeat the purpose.

Imagine, the trunk is being updated constantly. The branch may get
updated a lot and then say during the week, it may become stagnant; so
then it seems like a good time to delete that branch and do a copy,
get it refreshed with the trunk. I could do a merge, but the changes
will be massive.

Oh yea, good job with subversion. I think with CVS; you kind of pray
it works, SVN just seems to work. The only problems I have seem to
have are with Apache/WebDav/Svn, mainly performance issues? But that
could be the configuration? Also, merge seems to take a while; other
than that, great stuff. I may start using it for my personal files.

On 11/4/05, Joshua Varner <jlvarner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Duncan Murdoch <subversion@murdoch-sutherland.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > The second part of Berlin's question, "Is there a lot wasted by doing
> > constant copying", would seem to depend on how Subversion stores the
> > deltas internally. I've read about that before (how FSFS is different
> > than using BDB), but I don't remember the details well enough, and can't
> > find the reference.
> >
> > Can anyone point it out to me? I.e. a document describing what is
> > stored in the deltas.
> >
> My understanding is that BDB stores a full text copy of the most current
> revision and reverse deltas of all older ones. FSFS stores deltas from the
> first version exclusively.
> Copies share storage of their history prior to the point of the copy, then
> they diverge, so a long standing branch can have double the space of a
> file only on trunk, i.e. The delta is stored once when initially made, then
> again when it is merged, but I doubt this is a severe bottle neck, I haven't
> heard anyone complaining about it.
> Possibly this will be made more efficient when better merge tracking is
> present, but I don't know what the thoertical limit of this compression is.
> Josh
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 5 01:09:24 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.