On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 05:44:24PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> You mean "working copy" (the copy being checked out), not "repository"
> (the database we check out from).
I do, I am sorry for my lax words.
> I would argue that you were relying on an implementation detail.
> Nowhere does the documentation mention or even recommend what you
> are doing.
I don't think the documentation talks about what happens when using
'svn' in parallel at all, that is right. What exactly is called a
regression depends on how you define it, but I am not really interested
in an argument about that. It did work before and doesn't right now.
> I have two suggestions:
> When using 1.7 clients, run checkouts in parallel but into temporary
> directories that are not nested. When done, move the temporary working
> copies into each other to create the nested structure. This should work.
> If you keep all temp working copies on the same disk then moving them
> should be very cheap.
That is most likely the only general way we could go with this. It means
additional bookkeeping, unfortunately though.
> If you use HTTP to access the repository, my other suggestion is to update
> both clients and server to 1.8 and test checkout performance. You might
> benefit from the new HTTP client layer (serf) in skelta mode, which might
> improve throughput to the point where you don't need to checkout different
> working copies in parallel for performance reasons. See here for details:
We use parallel checkouts most of all not because a special server might
be slow, but connections to servers might be (different continent, ect),
and because we checkout from a couple of different servers at the same
time. But we will sure look into the new version as well.
Thank you very much for your suggestions.
As to the original problem: is there any chance the 'nested' checkout
could be made to work? Subversion could just ignore any upper-level .svn
directories. What is done here is a fresh checkout. There is no need to
check anything further up in the directory tree, especially not if it
could make that checkout fail.
Received on 2013-07-07 17:56:36 CEST