efficiency over NFS

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mohit Aron wrote:
      At my
>     old company, every developer had their repository on a central,
>     backed-up NFS server, and a lightweight checkout on local disk.
> 
> They were probably using the local disk because of bzr's inefficiency in
> having a workspace on NFS.

No, I'm the person who set it up, and I felt workspaces on NFS were a
nutsy idea.  NFS is slow and not a POSIX filesystem.

> 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.

I believe that if code isn't worth committing, it's probably not worth
backing up either.  So backed-up repositories are not a special reason
for me to commit.

> Also, isn't the motto supposed to be that one should think about
> the code and not about version control and backups ?

I see version control as very relevant to the code.  There are ways of
developing code that interact well with version control, and ways that
interact horribly.

> I think 'bzr' should support an 'edit' command - if not by default then
> as an optional extension.

I don't think anyone's opposed to that, but in my view, having to run
"edit" on every file you wish to edit is very intrusive, and forces you
to think about version control, rather than the code quite a lot.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHz/X20F+nu1YWqI0RAnMVAJ0YP4W/Sk51KpefMxKkYGza0cmzJwCdGAVU
WPz6xHYYhV9jwOAuwdoSdok=
=7tMn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----