efficiency over NFS

[Mohit Aron]

>
> No, but that is why checkouts and lightweight checkouts exist.  At my
> old company, every developer had their repository on a central,
> backed-up NFS server, and a lightweight checkout on local disk.  That
> way, every commit they made was backed up, but they didn't have to use
> NFS for their workspace.
>


They were probably using the local disk because of bzr's inefficiency in
having a workspace on NFS.

And if I do have a workspace on the local disk with the repository on NFS,
then I'll have to continously worry about commiting my changes so that they
go into the repository and are backed up by NFS. Its not reasonable to
expect one to do this every few lines of code that he/she writes. Also,
isn't the motto supposed to be that one should think about the code and not
about version control and backups ?

I think 'bzr' should support an 'edit' command - if not by default then as
an optional extension. That way, people who believe in the safety of keeping
data over NFS can  use that model and people who want to use the local disk
can continue doing so.


- Mohit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080306/15c8e7c0/attachment.htm