Christopher Jones wrote:
>>> This is not in any way slower than rsync. With no actual changes, a In fact, doesn't rsync only transfer the changed files, with a number of optimisations on top of that? SVN supposedly does the same of course, but includes the whole CVS directory. There has to be overhead associated with that. > Not in my experience. I use an svn checkout as my main sources and do not > update too regularly, but when I do its pretty fast. Also, doesn't the rsync updater benefit from mirrors whereas I presume there's only a single SVN server? That too can change speed depending on where you are. I'll admit though that the only svn-based selfupdate (sync, rather) I've ever done was on a slow set-up on which I've never tried the rsync-based method. Still, my over all experience with SVN is that it's slow, even compared to other CVS methods. YMMV, of course. R. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
