Jason Brittain wrote:
On 7/23/05, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have been doing some quick tests and my totally unscientific,
statistically invalid results are that cvs annotate seems to be about 7
to 8 times faster than svn blame (50s compared with 7s) and cvs log
seems to be about 2 to 3 times faster than svn log (16s compared to 7s).
I've heard the subversion developers remind people that there are at least a few
different network protocols for accessing svn. In the http:// case,
it will be the
slowest. IIRC they say using the svn:// protocol is the fastest. It looks
as if the Apache svn installation does not support svn:// URLs. The page that
shows the URLs doesn't mention it:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/cvsindex.html#Subversion
And when I try to connect to the svn port (tcp 3690) I get a connection refused.
So, maybe the infrastructure people could set up a svnserve server as well as
serving these repositories through Apache httpd?
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch06s03.html
I use svn and I'm looking forward to having Tomcat hosted in it.
Remy: isn't "svn blame" what you're looking for?
I have looked a little at the command line tool now. It's actually more
like the regular "svn log". It looks like the thing missing is good UI
support.
It indeed seems a bit sluggish overall, but it's very usable :)
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
