On Dec 4, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Karel Gardas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Martin Vahi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It is about 4.4GiB, over 100k files, over 6k folders,
>> but it should not be that bad. After all, that's what
>> many projects look like in 2016.
>
> This statement is IMHO a bit unfair. You basically grab *4*
> subversions trees (if I count well) and you smash that to one big tree
> and commit into fossil repo. So if you expect speed of svn, then
> please compare fairly independent subversion trees with independent
> fossil trees.
Actually, you’d have to compare Fossil against checking out every single
revision from each separate Subversion repository:
$ for r in $(seq 1 $maxrev) ; do svn co -r $r … ; done
A Subversion checkout just gets you the tip of trunk by default, and you have
to go back to the server in order to walk back through history. Fossil grabs
everything.
There are plans laid out on the mailing list for making Fossil do both shallow
and narrow checkouts. As it stands, Fossil always gives you a 100% wide and
100% deep checkout.
Subversion allows both: it gives shallow checkouts always, and you can ask for
a narrow checkout by specifying a subdirectory within the repo, grabbing only
that slice.
It’s a good idea. Someone just has to write it.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
