> > Not "sufficient" because it takes time and manual work to do? Or, because > it doesn't do what you need? > > Taking 97 minutes to pull 25 GB from all the tags/ and branches/ is > unacceptable when it takes only 3 minutes to pull the 660 MB we actually > need from just the trunk/ directories. Getting everything and then manually > pruning isn't a viable option. Getting just the trunk/ directories without a > brittle script is the whole point of my post. > > > Sparse directories is exactly what you need to use to get what you want. > > 1.7 added a -parents (I think it is) argument to the update/checkout > > [...] > I'll check out that option. Unfortunately... > > > What version of the server are you running? I think if you use Sparse > > directories with a pre 1.6 server the server sends all the files and the > > client > just throws away what doesn't fit into your requested depth. > > Ah. Our server reports itself as 1.4.2. That probably explains why it took > so > long. I have no idea what the odds are of having our server upgraded (used > by many other projects). > > > That all said, I don't really see the benefit of having one working copy > > that > you can update at once. > > As opposed to having 14 working copies that every developer has > to manually maintain? Really? The layout in my OP is only part of this > project. We really do have 14 separate branches/tags/trunks trees. This is a > new project, so that number will probably go up over time.
Yes really. I have perhaps 20 or more working copies checked out. Many of those are various versions (branches) of one project. I update the ones I am working on as needed. I have no need to update WC's that I'm not working on every time I update the stuff I am working on. Once again, I don't see the benefit. BOb > > > I prefer to check out the branch and/or trunks that I need to work on > > as needed and update each one as needed. If you want to update all > > your working copies with one command you can create a local batch file > which goes through and calls update on each folder. > > With --max-depth it should be possible to avoid needing a script for > updates. I've been working on a script for the initial checkout. It's > non-trivial > and brittle. I will postpone the gory details unless there is interest.
