On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:58:22PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Kevin Puetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
