Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: Stas Verberkt <legolas@legolasweb.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What replaces csup? Message-ID: <CAHu1Y70vLTQaGLQd_S65cyQe6RErgXJg2iy9VUDr9z6xXKwqyQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <75ca1e92e2a51857615e193434898bf5@homey.local> References: <D97788AE24B7FFB0C79AA6FB@localhost> <k38bct$ang$1@ger.gmane.org> <780066C6E2FAB67A997876B7@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <20567.50041.903201.979498@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209172102400.26215@wonkity.com> <75ca1e92e2a51857615e193434898bf5@homey.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project I know of will have moved from subversion to git. ;-) - M On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Stas Verberkt <legolas@legolasweb.nl> wrote: > Warren Block schreef op : > >> The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit >> history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space >> used by the svn checkout. >> > Although I believe the checkouts are bigger, I do not think they have > all the commit history. This is where SVN and CVS differ from systems > like Git or Mercury, which have all the history in a local working > copy. I think the overhead of SVN consists of backups and cached > copies of the previous revision, but I am not quite sure. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHu1Y70vLTQaGLQd_S65cyQe6RErgXJg2iy9VUDr9z6xXKwqyQ>