On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Hyrum K.
Wright<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Talden wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Erik Huelsmann<ehuels_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Seak, T. F.<lapsap7+svn_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 20:50, Bob Archer <Bob.Archer_at_amsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In Tortoise open your repo browser. Find the tag in question. Right
>>>>> click
>>>>> on the tag folder and select "Show Log". At the bottom of the log
>>>>> dialog
>>>>> click the "Stop on Copy" check box. Look in the Action list. If you see
>>>>> one
>>>>> log item and action there "Added" with a single Path/Copy From Path
>>>>> then
>>>>> this was an svn copy.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you see many log items there with tons of files added then it
>>>>> probably
>>>>> imported each file into the tag separately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at the attached image (if this mailing-list
>>>> doesn't
>>>> filter it). Indeed, for a certain revision (85361) whose date
>>>> corresponds
>>>> to PVCS days, there are a lot of "added". I suppose this is what you
>>>> meant
>>>> by "imported each file into the tag separately".
>>>
>>> Actually, that's not true: the revision you're showing contains
>>> "Added" actions, but the column "Copy from" is also filled, that tells
>>> me this revision was created efficiently. It would be interesting to
>>
>> There's something mental about that 'tag'. It's the same file at the
>> same revision copied many many times, each time to a different tag.
>> This looks like it builds a tag from copies for each member of the
>> tag.
>>
>> Those copies are 'cheap' but enough of them adds up. For tagging to
>> really be cheap you would need to see something like "cp .../foo/trunk
>> .../foo/tags/X" - tagging the entire trunk at a time, not a tag per
>> file.
>>
>> This has issues, for one it's hard to track that tag back through
>> history to its source as the log of tag root won't be helpful.
>>
>> It might be worth looking on disk at the size of that revision
>> (assuming it's not a packed svn 1.6 repo) just to verify that it is
>
> If it is a packed version of a 1.6 repos, just look at the appropriate lines
> in the manifest file.
Ahh good to know. We're moving to 1.6.x shortly.
NB I noticed a 1.6.4 mentioned. Where can I go to see a list of the
candidate fixes for 1.6.4?
--
Talden
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2375003
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-07-23 23:56:14 CEST