On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:26 PM Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> wrote: > > Johan Corveleyn wrote: > >Speaking from the peanut gallery, [...] > >If I would be a user with several huge binaries in the repo / WC, I > >imagine I would not be happy with this proposal. The reason is that I > >have always, forever, only done "svn update the-whole-wc". Updating > >individual subdirs is micro-managing. [...] > > But do you locally modify those huge binaries?
Well, as I said, I don't have huge binaries myself (nor do my colleagues, for that matter). We have a single build server with 400 working copies, each with 100000's of "normal sized" files. But apparently some users, like Karl (or Karl's customer), do have huge binaries in their WC, and I suppose sometimes they will be modified. All I can say is: individual-directory-updating is not something I've often witnessed being used (unless maybe for a short ad-hoc purpose, not on a regular basis). With lots of things going on, and lots of things being worked on at the same time, the usual workflow I know is "update entire WC to keep up with others; start working (or continue where you left yesterday)". So if I would locally modify a huge binary (it might be left there for days, weeks, ... locally modified, until I'm happy for it to be committed), every time I update I would update the entire WC. That's just me speculating of course ... maybe I should leave the floor for Karl and others ... Just one more thing: if people "micro-manage" their working copy, in my experience they will usually do this once, by setting up an appropriately arranged sparse working copy (leaving out for example the huge binaries of other teams they're not interested in, or source modules that are not important for their work). After this one-time setup (now and then finetuned to exclude or add another directory or file), people just "svn update entire-sparse-wc". It makes no sense to me to update only subdirectories, at least not on a regular basis. That's too much fiddly work everytime (and you can't save that "to-be-updated selection" for next time), and you might end up with inconsistent stuff locally (for instance a library not being updated together with its callers). But again, I might have wrong assumptions here, since I don't work with huge binaries in SVN myself. -- Johan
