On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 18:19, Shawn Walker wrote: > 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... I don't even know such details of SVN - I dropped it when I found that it fails at least two of my requirements (commit without net access, branch without write access).
> Their scenario seems little different. which other project is as big and still as diverse as opensolaris is or wants to become in terms of community size and codebase? which of the "big" projects are not using the OneObviousChoiceAtTheTime (cvs) and stuck to it (or svn, it's "successor"), keeping the project more closed than necessary? > Clarify, please? I don't understand this comment. the use of libneon (is it finally stable, after 5 years?), apache2 with their own module - or alternatively ssh+svnserve (which needs full blown accounts on the machine for every dev or user table hacks). and svk is even another layer on top of that (in perl, pulling in quite some runtime) "too many unstable components" (this might have changed, as said, I don't track SVN closely anymore due to their limited scope) > As I said before +1 to svk... As I implied before, +1 to more evaluation. This is a long term issue - thanks to network effects, once you get onto a system, it can be troublesome to get everyone off it again. IF svk is really the best long term solution, then it should be used, but so far, it looks too fragile to me (as do most alternatives, though usually for different reasons than svk) patrick mauritz _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
