> > > >Because if it's a show stopper, then so will be arch, monotone, or any > >of our other replacements (they all either store the entire repo on your > >disk, or have stuff in the working copy), and we will be stuck with cvs > >until everyone is happy to use up double/whatever disk. > > > > > Actually, having one copy of the entire repository might be cheaper than > having > several dozen double checkouts.
Yes, at some point the double space outruns the cost of the entire repo. For gcc, the cost of the entire repo is 4.4 gig right now. For your case, it might be cheaper to rsync the repo (unlike cvs, for each extra global revision to download, it's going to be 1 new file, and the old files won't be different. So it's going to be a *very fast* rsync), and export directly from that. > But then, having no firm, easilywaiting : memorized > revision numbers is certainly a much larger issue. I understand that > distributed > revision control systems would me ay iit much harder to refer to a particular > version. yeah, this is because they generally have some UUID or something as part of the revision number. >
