On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:08 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > Since I think this is a very important point, I'm going to contribute a > couple of supporting statistics... > > The CVS repository is about 2.6GB.
3200989 cvsfiles oh, wait, that includes wwwdocs and whatnot, sorry. > A complete CVS checkout is 260MB, or about 10% of the repository. If > you've just got the one checkout, the checkouts win. I've got a dozen > right now; from what I've been hearing, svk would be the biggest win > for me. > You can't mix svn and svk commits against the same repo. It confuses svk (not svn). You can use svk readonly, of course.
