|
From: | Alex Perez |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration |
Date: | Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:17:45 -0700 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.6a1 (Windows/20051007) |
Adrian Robert wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Helge Hess wrote:On 14. Okt 2005, at 09:10 Uhr, MJ Ray wrote:Integration and disk/memory consumption are real. You may have time to upgrade and reconfigure your desktop every N minutesI honestly do not know what you are talking about. Even my NeXTstation from 1994 has 512MB disk space, 24MB of RAM and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Svn client.Have you tried running it and are you satisfied with the performance? Also, if you are at 5Mb per tool, you're not going to have room for many tools on that machine.
For all of MJ's bitching, the svn binary (which is all you use to do checking in/out & commit, is 84 kilobytes, and the respective libsvn_client library is a whopping 125 kilobytes. I know some of you may still have 80GB SCSI-I hard drives, but even those of you who do can clearly afford the RAMspace </pedant>
Facetiousness aside, it's important to consider human factors costs when talking about disk space, not just the cost per GB down at the local Walmart (or whatever its European equivalent ;). You have the machines you have, sometimes you can't just add a disk but have to swap it (e.g., laptops), which can cause major administrative overhead, sometimes it might be a work machine you have little control over, etc.. Also, it's easy to pooh pooh the resource cost for any given tool (what's 5Mb after all?), but it's more the principle of it -- if you never care about resources, they get consumed pretty quickly. (Think of money here.. ;)Regarding voting, maybe you could explain why you think it's a bad idea?
He's not going to do that, because that will show him for the hack he is, and because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |