Kevin Puetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If you use svk <http://svk.elixus.org/> for the client side, there's >> (almost?) no overhead. >> >> Regards, Olaf. > > erm, svk is cool and all, but it keeps a local repository mirror (not > necessarily full I suppose, but usually it is). So it's *much* heavier on > the client side than normal svn. Pays off in several ways, but just because > it keeps it's weight in the depot folder instead of the wc folder doesn't > make it ligher (unless you use several wc's I suppose).
Hmmm, I thought that several other systems had similar (or worse) overhead -- most notably that bk and darcs have no real notion of a "repository", but always store the entire history in every source tree. Such a model seems to simplify the user interface in some cases, but obviously can impact disk usage... However I have no real experience with either bk or darcs; please correct me if I'm wrong about this. [This is as opposed to arch, which has a repository (local/remote) model, and allows even repositories to contain only deltas from some other repository.] -Miles -- Yo mama's so fat when she gets on an elevator it HAS to go down. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
