I don't know NFSv4 well. I do know though that it is not as widely deployed as NFSv3. Even Netapp (which is the leader in NFS appliances) still sells NFSv3 solutions as far as I know. That said, in general it seems to be a bad idea to issue a 'stat' on every file in the workspace whenever a 'bzr status' or a 'bzr commit' is done. Different people seem to have different opinions on this - I personally would much rather prefer that 'bzr' not rely on the performance of the underlying filesystem so heavily. That's why I'm proposing the 'edit' command as an option - whoever likes it can use it, rest can just use bzr the way it works currently. - Mohit <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 AM, John Yates <<a href="mailto:jyates@netezza.com">jyates@netezza.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Correct me if I am wrong, but did not NFSv4 address the issue of stat performance? If that is the case then this scenario applies only to those using older versions of NFS.  The number of shops creating these highly NFS-based environments, wanting to adopt cutting edge dvc technology, and yet unwilling to avail themselves of the benefits of NFSv4 must be rather small. /john </blockquote></div>