Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

[David Roundy <droundy@abridgegame.org>]

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:58:22PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Kevin Puetz <puetzk@puetzk.org> writes:
> > 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.

wrt darcs, you're mostly correct.  There is the possibility of a "partial"
repository, which doesn't have the full history, but that isn't the
default, and therefore tends to be less well-debugged.  On the other hand,
if you never try to *look* at the history, you're pretty much safe--the
bugs tend to show up when you try to browse that history which you *do*
have.
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.darcs.net