On 7/7/05, Patrick Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:00:30AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > > That's not true of svn as far as the write access is concerned. At > > least if you're using svnserve + fsfs. > uh, how does the method with which writing to the server and storage is > done affect the general necessity to allow writing to the server in the > first place? > > this isn't about writing to a branch, it's about writing to a server.
I thought you were speaking of the fact that anonymous read access to SVN using Apache requires write access to the repository whereas svnserve + fsfs does not (if I remember correctly). That's what I was referring to anyway... > > A few prominent community figures have already noted large scalability > > problems or other things with some of them. No offense, but of those > for their scenario. it might be worth to reevaluate with the opensolaris > scenario in mind. Their scenario seems little different. > > listed I hope that OpenSolaris would only get involved with monotone > > or svk. The ideology, politics, and licensing of the others is not > > something I would prefer to be involved with. > I think "huge" when talking about svk. svn isn't a lightweight, and svk > layers even more on top of it. Clarify, please? I don't understand this comment. As I said before +1 to svk... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
