Re: Parallel branches/tags/trunk directories

> Not "sufficient" because it takes time and manual work to do? Or, because it doesn't do what you need?

Taking 97 minutes to pull 25 GB from all the tags/ and branches/ is unacceptable when it takes only 3 minutes to pull the 660 MB we actually need from just the trunk/ directories.  Getting everything and then manually pruning isn't a viable option.  Getting just the trunk/ directories without a brittle script is the whole point of my post.

> Sparse directories is exactly what you need to use to get what you want.
> 1.7 added a -parents (I think it is) argument to the update/checkout [...]
I'll check out that option.  Unfortunately...

> What version of the server are you running? I think if you use Sparse directories with a pre 1.6 server
> the server sends all the files and the client just throws away what doesn't fit into your requested depth.

Ah.  Our server reports itself as 1.4.2.  That probably explains why it took so long.  I have no idea what the odds are of having our server upgraded (used by many other projects).

> That all said, I don't really see the benefit of having one working copy that you can update at once.

As opposed to having 14 working copies that every developer has to manually maintain?  Really?  The layout in my OP is only part of this project.  We really do have 14 separate branches/tags/trunks trees.  This is a new project, so that number will probably go up over time.

> I prefer to check out the branch and/or trunks that I need to work on as needed and update each
> one as needed. If you want to update all your working copies with one command you can create
> a local batch file which goes through and calls update on each folder.

With --max-depth it should be possible to avoid needing a script for updates.  I've been working on a script for the initial checkout. It's non-trivial and brittle.  I will postpone the gory details unless there is interest.
Received on 2011-08-11 19:08:20 CEST