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? -- Jason Brittain --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
