On 9/30/06, Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So this confirms that 'svk smerge' does not re-create the repository in the same compact form in which it exists on SourceForge. :-(
Another experiment you can try: subversion 1.4 now ships with a mirroring tool called 'svnsync'. Try using 'svnsync push' to replicate one repository to another, and see the results. I somehow got cc:'d on these conversations, and I feel like a bit of an interloper... but it's hard not to overhear the debate. Here are my two cents. * Nearly every opensource project has dependencies on other projects. That's normal. it is *not* the norm to grab the dependencies and stuff privately patched versions into your source repository. The norm is have a build system which carefully checks for the correct versions of the dependencies, and then put the burden of making the build 'just work' on those people who actually are in charge of creating distributions. Typically there are individuals charged with making sure that each OS distribution (redhat, debian, ubuntu, freebsd, fink, windows, etc) has a healthy package available with dependencies described correctly, and/or that the apt/yum/whatever system is using the correct versions of the dependencies. What you guys are doing just doesn't scale; you need to play nicely with the rest of the world, rather than try to put yourself in a bubble. If every project did what you guys are doing, a user might end up with 15 different private versions of GCL on their system, instead of 2 versions managed by the OS and shared by 15 products. (Yes, subversion's tarball includes apr and neon, but that's just *one* particular package we distribute. If you install subversion via a system like apt, things just magically work. And if you check out svn's source tree from version control, you don't get anything but subversion's source code.) * Saying 'svn isn't ready for primetime' is mildly amusing to me. I'm one of subversion's original designers, and the system has been evolving for 6 years now. Apache, GCC, KDE, Gnome, Samba, and nearly every project started within the last 3 years uses it. Sourceforge and Google offer it to the public. There are 6+ books written on it. It's the 'new standard'. If it were as unusable as your personal experiences, it never would have taken off. I'm sure, though, that the negative experiences reported about svn aren't amusing to those experiencing them. But I assure you that they're indicative of something configured incorrectly in specific environments. Those experiences aren't the norm, they're some weird edge-case. In other words, occam's razor says, "it's not that the public is crazy for widely adopting a buggy system, rather, there's just something buggy about your particular setups". :-) My recommendation is that you guys report your problems to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list (which has thousands of subscribers) to help de-bug whatever gremlins are in your setup. Quietly hating subversion isn't a useful strategy. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer