Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:32:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Stas Verberkt <legolas@legolasweb.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What replaces csup? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1209180724130.65590@wonkity.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
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Stas Verberkt 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. You're right. 'svn blame', for instance, retrieves the history from the repository. So it's not as bad as it could be... but that 700M number was from a ports tree checkout. My source checkout shows 869M in .svn. That's a pretty large chunk of bandwidth for data that is useless to someone who just wants to do a buildworld, as opposed to actually working on the source.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1209180724130.65590>