[svk-users] SVK still alive?

[Ruslan Zakirov]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Marko Käning <mk362 at mch.osram.de> wrote:
>> Part of the trick is that svk is basically a "smart client" for SVN in
>> many circumstances. So I wouldn't say that I use svk instead of SVN.
>> "It's a tool that makes svn work better for me"
> Well, one could say so: "smarter client"...
> But it's generating a lot of overhead, since
That's not an overhead...

>  * in fact you carry around the whole repository (in form of SVK),
you carry mirror with history that allow you to browse it without
accessing server and have enough info to work off-line.


>  * locally check it out as SVN (e.g. via TortoiseSVN)
>  * and the working copy has its own pristine copies of everything

Using SVK's internal representation as SVN repository never was our
target. It's just implementation details that allow you to use TSVN in
hackish way.

>
>
> In case of mercurial you just have the repo which you can be cloned
> efficiently via hard-links and that's all. If the data volume has, say,
> 6GB you end up with a mercurial repo of about 12 GB.
>
> In SVK you mirror at first which makes said 6GB. Then you check out via
> SVN locally and get another 12GB on top of that, which makes 18GB...
>
> But I guess one has to make a compromise somewhere... :|
For example I don't checkout it as svn and very happy with svk as
command line client. Especially with `svk ci -i`.

>
> Sniff
>
> I always tend to forget that disk space is cheap... ;)
> _______________________________________________
> svk-users mailing list
> svk-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/svk-users
>



-- 
Best regards, Ruslan.