Re: Subversion 1.8 httpd.exe taking 100% CPU

2013-12-11 Thread Mark Phippard
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:

 On 8/20/13 3:15 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
  But from what I see process is stuck in
  libaprutil-1.dll!7489fc50(), given the last message in debug
  log is auth_ldap authenticate: using URL it most likely problem with
  communication with LDAP server (ldap protocol implemented in
  libapr-util). It could be misconfiguration or bug in libapr-util.

 Note there was another similar thread on this here:

 https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-users/201311.mbox/%3CCEB51A88.2B46A%25davek%40gamehouse.com%3E

 I came to the conclusion that there was an LDAP problem as well.

 Things that would be interesting to know is if the httpd version changed
 along
 with the Subversion version or if httpd was left alone and only Subversion
 was
 updated.


I would be happy to answer any questions on the included version of Apache
components in SVN Edge.  That said, you can also just check the Apache
error log from the SVN Edge web UI and the line when the server is started
gives a breakdown of the versions.  The current SVN Edge release is 4.0.4
and it includes SVN 1.8.5 and httpd 2.4.7:

https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.svnedge/wiki/OpenSourceComponents

Based on Valentijn's request from this summer, we have also started
capturing the PDB files from the build process and I can supply them to
anyone that needs them.  Just email me.  Valentijn changed his server to
Linux before we got a chance to provide them to him.


-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/


RE: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Mark Kneisler
Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release 
management into test and production environments.  

For these environments I have a few requirements:
Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision, which 
will add, update and delete needed files
I want as small of a .svn directory as possible

I'm fairly certain that this functionality is currently not present, but I 
think there are many installations where this would be valuable.

I'd like to create an enhancement request, but according to the website it was 
recommended that I post to this mailing list first.

-Original Message-
From: Cooke, Mark [mailto:mark.co...@siemens.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:44 AM
To: Mark Kneisler; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: RE: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

 -Original Message-
 From: Mark Kneisler [mailto:mark.kneis...@tceq.texas.gov]
 Sent: 11 December 2013 01:45
 
 I have several environments where I'd like to use a SVN checkout, but 
 where I'd never ever want to make changes to the files or perform a 
 commit.  For these environments, I'd only want to perform an update or 
 an update to revision.
 
 I'm hoping that this type of checkout would require far less space for 
 the .svn directory.
 
AFAIK there is no such option for a checkout, however, you can get the source 
without the .svn folder using the export command:-

http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.ref.svn.c.export.html

...you can specify the revision etc.  Note, however, that it will not remove 
unwanted files like an update can.

~ mark c

P.s. I think Thorsten just beat me to it...


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Mark Phippard
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Mark Kneisler 
mark.kneis...@tceq.texas.gov wrote:

 Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release
 management into test and production environments.

 For these environments I have a few requirements:
 Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
 For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision,
 which will add, update and delete needed files
 I want as small of a .svn directory as possible

 I'm fairly certain that this functionality is currently not present, but I
 think there are many installations where this would be valuable.

 I'd like to create an enhancement request, but according to the website it
 was recommended that I post to this mailing list first.



Pristine files do not exist solely so you can edit files.  It is convenient
they exist so that you can diff your changes or revert your changes without
needing to contact the server, or even be online, but obviously those
commands could be made to use the server for that and simply require a
connection when no pristine is available.

The main reason the pristine files exist is so that the client and server
can exchange deltas with each other and minimize network traffic.  This is
just as true for update as it is for commit.  One of the original mantra's
for the 1.0 release was disk is cheap, network is expensive.

There is an existing request in the system for making these files optional:

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=525

There is also an existing request for storing the pristine files in
compressed format:

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=908

-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Philip Martin
Mark Kneisler mark.kneis...@tceq.texas.gov writes:

 Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release 
 management into test and production environments.  

 For these environments I have a few requirements:
   Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
   For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision, which 
 will add, update and delete needed files
   I want as small of a .svn directory as possible

 I'm fairly certain that this functionality is currently not present, but I 
 think there are many installations where this would be valuable.

 I'd like to create an enhancement request, but according to the website it 
 was recommended that I post to this mailing list first.

You probably want the optional text base feature:

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=525

-- 
Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*


RE: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Mark Kneisler
I think making the pristine files optional would work for me.

Here's an idea.

Instead of having pristine copies of all files, how about adding to the 
pristine directory only when a file is changed?

From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 9:58 AM
To: Mark Kneisler
Cc: Cooke, Mark; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Mark Kneisler 
mark.kneis...@tceq.texas.govmailto:mark.kneis...@tceq.texas.gov wrote:
Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release 
management into test and production environments.

For these environments I have a few requirements:
Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision, which 
will add, update and delete needed files
I want as small of a .svn directory as possible

I'm fairly certain that this functionality is currently not present, but I 
think there are many installations where this would be valuable.

I'd like to create an enhancement request, but according to the website it was 
recommended that I post to this mailing list first.


Pristine files do not exist solely so you can edit files.  It is convenient 
they exist so that you can diff your changes or revert your changes without 
needing to contact the server, or even be online, but obviously those commands 
could be made to use the server for that and simply require a connection when 
no pristine is available.

The main reason the pristine files exist is so that the client and server can 
exchange deltas with each other and minimize network traffic.  This is just as 
true for update as it is for commit.  One of the original mantra's for the 1.0 
release was disk is cheap, network is expensive.

There is an existing request in the system for making these files optional:

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=525

There is also an existing request for storing the pristine files in compressed 
format:

http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=908

--
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Reser
On 12/11/13 7:46 AM, Mark Kneisler wrote:
 Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release 
 management into test and production environments.  
 
 For these environments I have a few requirements:
   Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
   For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision, which 
 will add, update and delete needed files
   I want as small of a .svn directory as possible
 
 I'm fairly certain that this functionality is currently not present, but I 
 think there are many installations where this would be valuable.
 
 I'd like to create an enhancement request, but according to the website it 
 was recommended that I post to this mailing list first.

Just to set some expectations here.  The working copy code is highly
complicated and assumes that pristine files are available throughout it.
Making this change is not simple.  Which is the reason it hasn't already been 
done.



RE: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Bob Archer
 Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release
 management into test and production environments.
 
 For these environments I have a few requirements:
   Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
   For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision, which
 will add, update and delete needed files
   I want as small of a .svn directory as possible

Why? Disk is cheap. Much cheaper than the time it would take to modify svn to 
work the way you are requesting. Heck, I just bought a 1TB SSD for ~$500. The 
spinning version was about $120.

I would recommend you write a script that does an export rather than using the 
update feature. Although, this would probably mean the task would take longer, 
since you don't have the benefit of the .svn pristines to know what changed 
files need to be requested from the server. But, it sounds like you care more 
about disk space than network traffic and/or time. Of course, that is your 
decision to make.



 
 I'm fairly certain that this functionality is currently not present, but I 
 think
 there are many installations where this would be valuable.
 
 I'd like to create an enhancement request, but according to the website it
 was recommended that I post to this mailing list first.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Cooke, Mark [mailto:mark.co...@siemens.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:44 AM
 To: Mark Kneisler; users@subversion.apache.org
 Subject: RE: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Mark Kneisler [mailto:mark.kneis...@tceq.texas.gov]
  Sent: 11 December 2013 01:45
 
  I have several environments where I'd like to use a SVN checkout, but
  where I'd never ever want to make changes to the files or perform a
  commit.  For these environments, I'd only want to perform an update or
  an update to revision.
 
  I'm hoping that this type of checkout would require far less space for
  the .svn directory.
 
 AFAIK there is no such option for a checkout, however, you can get the
 source without the .svn folder using the export command:-
 
 http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.ref.svn.c.export.html
 
 ...you can specify the revision etc.  Note, however, that it will not remove
 unwanted files like an update can.
 
 ~ mark c
 
 P.s. I think Thorsten just beat me to it...


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Bob Archer bob.arc...@amsi.com wrote:
 Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release
 management into test and production environments.

 For these environments I have a few requirements:
   Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
   For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision, which
 will add, update and delete needed files
   I want as small of a .svn directory as possible

 Why? Disk is cheap. Much cheaper than the time it would take to modify svn to 
 work the way you are requesting. Heck, I just bought a 1TB SSD for ~$500. The 
 spinning version was about $120.

Sometimes it is a good idea to distribute work out to clients and
sometimes you really want the client to just be a lightweight client
and make the server do the work of serving.   I've always liked the
minimal amount of data that CVS needs on the clients and sometimes
wished that svn could match that.

 I would recommend you write a script that does an export rather than using 
 the update feature. Although, this would probably mean the task would take 
 longer, since you don't have the benefit of the .svn pristines to know what 
 changed files need to be requested from the server. But, it sounds like you 
 care more about disk space than network traffic and/or time. Of course, that 
 is your decision to make.

Within reasonable limits it doesn't cost anything more to send more
network traffic.   But the cost of client disks scales up by the
number of clients.   Sometimes you can get by mounting a network disk
into all the clients, but then performance suffers, especially with
windows clients.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Reser
On 12/11/13 9:47 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Within reasonable limits it doesn't cost anything more to send more
 network traffic.   But the cost of client disks scales up by the
 number of clients.   Sometimes you can get by mounting a network disk
 into all the clients, but then performance suffers, especially with
 windows clients.

Network traffic has scaling costs just like storage space.  If we'd made the
decision to not store pristines and you had to go to the server for pristine
copies then the discussion here would be reversed.  Someone would be asking why
we don't just store pristines and pointing out how disk space is cheap compared
to the cost of converting their entire network to have more capacity.  Can't
make everyone happy all the time.


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Branko Čibej
On 11.12.2013 17:21, Mark Kneisler wrote:

 I think making the pristine files optional would work for me.

  

 Here’s an idea.

  

 Instead of having pristine copies of all files, how about adding to
 the pristine directory only when a file is changed?


You know, that's a great idea! I wonder why we never thought of it
ourselves? :)

-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. br...@wandisco.com


RE: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Bob Archer
 On 11.12.2013 17:21, Mark Kneisler wrote:
 
  I think making the pristine files optional would work for me.
 
 
 
  Here’s an idea.
 
 
 
  Instead of having pristine copies of all files, how about adding to
  the pristine directory only when a file is changed?
 
 
 You know, that's a great idea! I wonder why we never thought of it
 ourselves? :)

Wouldn't that mean that you need to have some daemon service (or file watcher 
or something) running to determine if a file is modified? Also, it would mean 
you would need a constant connection to the server to use a subversion working 
copy.

BOb



Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Branko Čibej
On 11.12.2013 20:19, Bob Archer wrote:
 On 11.12.2013 17:21, Mark Kneisler wrote:
 I think making the pristine files optional would work for me.



 Here’s an idea.



 Instead of having pristine copies of all files, how about adding to
 the pristine directory only when a file is changed?

 You know, that's a great idea! I wonder why we never thought of it
 ourselves? :)
 Wouldn't that mean that you need to have some daemon service (or file watcher 
 or something) running to determine if a file is modified?

Yes.

 Also, it would mean you would need a constant connection to the server to use 
 a subversion working copy.

Not necessarily; we don't need a pristine copy to check if a file is
modified, or if 's out of date WRT the repository. But the former
problem (requiring a daemon) is already a non-starter.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. br...@wandisco.com


RE: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Bob Archer
 On 11.12.2013 20:19, Bob Archer wrote:
  On 11.12.2013 17:21, Mark Kneisler wrote:
  I think making the pristine files optional would work for me.
 
 
 
  Here’s an idea.
 
 
 
  Instead of having pristine copies of all files, how about adding to
  the pristine directory only when a file is changed?
 
  You know, that's a great idea! I wonder why we never thought of it
  ourselves? :)
  Wouldn't that mean that you need to have some daemon service (or file
 watcher or something) running to determine if a file is modified?
 
 Yes.
 
  Also, it would mean you would need a constant connection to the server to
 use a subversion working copy.
 
 Not necessarily; we don't need a pristine copy to check if a file is 
 modified, or
 if 's out of date WRT the repository. But the former problem (requiring a
 daemon) is already a non-starter.

Right, but if a file is modified you would need to contact the repository to 
get the pristine because you are going to get an event after the file is 
modified. There may be some transactional file systems that allow you to get an 
event before the modification is committed to the file system so you can access 
the original copy, but I think they are few and far between.

(So I guess your original response of great idea was sarcastic and I didn't 
see it.)

BOb



Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Warren Block

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Les Mikesell wrote:


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Bob Archer bob.arc...@amsi.com wrote:

Yes, I understand the export function.  I want functionality for release
management into test and production environments.

For these environments I have a few requirements:
  Files in these environments will NEVER be edited
  For new releases I will need to perform an update to revision, which
will add, update and delete needed files
  I want as small of a .svn directory as possible


Why? Disk is cheap. Much cheaper than the time it would take to modify svn to 
work the way you are requesting. Heck, I just bought a 1TB SSD for ~$500. The 
spinning version was about $120.


Sometimes it is a good idea to distribute work out to clients and
sometimes you really want the client to just be a lightweight client
and make the server do the work of serving.   I've always liked the
minimal amount of data that CVS needs on the clients and sometimes
wished that svn could match that.


When FreeBSD switched from CVS to Subversion, there were a couple of 
projects attempting to replace our cvsup/csup commands for simple,

history-less, source checkouts.

One of these projects was svnup, http://jcm.dsl.visi.com/freebsd/svnup/

Not sure of the present status.


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
 On 12/11/13 9:47 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Within reasonable limits it doesn't cost anything more to send more
 network traffic.   But the cost of client disks scales up by the
 number of clients.   Sometimes you can get by mounting a network disk
 into all the clients, but then performance suffers, especially with
 windows clients.

 Network traffic has scaling costs just like storage space.

Not exactly.  Network traffic is generally bursty.  Clients rarely
spend 100% of their time checking out files, so a very large number
could share a local network even if they always deleted their
workspaces and checked out fresh copies.  But when storing the
pristine copies, they can't share anything - even if you map a shared
network volume you don't want to share the workspaces.

 If we'd made the
 decision to not store pristines and you had to go to the server for pristine
 copies then the discussion here would be reversed.  Someone would be asking 
 why
 we don't just store pristines and pointing out how disk space is cheap 
 compared
 to the cost of converting their entire network to have more capacity.

Sure - if you aren't local or the server is overloaded it is nice to
have the pristine copies.

  Can't
 make everyone happy all the time.

Well, that's why programs have options - all situations are not the same...

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Bob Archer bob.arc...@amsi.com wrote:

  Wouldn't that mean that you need to have some daemon service (or file
 watcher or something) running to determine if a file is modified?

 Yes.

Why would you need that in real-time instead of only when an svn
operation is done (possibly never...).

  Also, it would mean you would need a constant connection to the server to
 use a subversion working copy.

That's hardly a problem these days,

 Not necessarily; we don't need a pristine copy to check if a file is 
 modified, or
 if 's out of date WRT the repository. But the former problem (requiring a
 daemon) is already a non-starter.

 Right, but if a file is modified you would need to contact the repository to 
 get the pristine because you are going to get an event after the file is 
 modified. There may be some transactional file systems that allow you to get 
 an event before the modification is committed to the file system so you can 
 access the original copy, but I think they are few and far between.

Assuming you have metadata to know the revision of the file, what
possible scenario can there be that you could not get a copy of that
revision back from the server if you happen to need it?   Isn't that
why you put it there in the first place?  Or if you were headed this
route, wouldn't it be better to send the new copy to the server and
let it do the server work?   Unless your pending operation is a
revert, in which case you would want that copy from the server.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Reser
On 12/11/13 5:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Not exactly.  Network traffic is generally bursty.  Clients rarely
 spend 100% of their time checking out files, so a very large number
 could share a local network even if they always deleted their
 workspaces and checked out fresh copies.  But when storing the
 pristine copies, they can't share anything - even if you map a shared
 network volume you don't want to share the workspaces.

Key phrase there local network.  When Subversion was written the vast majority
of the users were using it over a WAN.  This lead to the assumption that disk
space was cheaper than improving the network.  That's not necessarily
reflective of the use today, but it shaped the assumption that we would always
have pristines in the code that was written.

 Well, that's why programs have options - all situations are not the same...

Absolutely, the answer here isn't a one size fits all.  Nobody is objecting to
the idea of allowing this.  The problem is that the code is not designed to
allow this and it's a ton of work to change that.  I can think of a good 10
other things that would require the same level of effort that would improve
things for a lot more people

Once you no longer need a pristine there are a lot of potential scenarios that
require different behaviors.  So it's not even a simple matter of just changing
the working copy library to support pristines not existing.  It becomes
thinking about how to deal with these scenarios (not that all of them need to
be implemented immediately, but you probably want to not pigeon hole yourself
into an implementation that doesn't support them).

Some files don't delta very well and essentially change every bit when the file
changes, so those files update and commit are better off just transmitting full
text.  Some files do delta fine but are just large, if you change the file you
may want to run a diff and update/commit would benefit from deltas.

If you have a file that deltas well should you download the full text from the
server and produce a delta locally or just send the full text to the server?
The answer to this depends on the network.  If you're on a asymmetric
connection where upload or download or different whichever method that sends
the largest data over the fastest direction is better (e.g. a typical DSL or
Cable internet connection where download is faster it may be far better to
download full text and upload the delta you calculate).  If you're on a
symmetric network you just do whichever takes the least work (directly
sending/retrieving full text).  Due to laptops that came move between networks
you also can't just configure the file on the server side (i.e. set a property).

What about compressing the file.  If it compresses well then you could have
your cake and eat it too...  You save disk space and you still have the 
pristine.

The user may want us to retain the pristine data we retrieved to execute a
command or they may just want us to destroy it immediately to limit disk space.

For that matter the pristine store as of 1.7 doesn't even remove files.  So if
you're updating a working copy it will just continue to grow.  As of 1.8 we use
this to allow faster updates when you already have a copy of a version of a
file in the pristine store.  So we need some sort of garbage collector for
the pristine store even for the setup that has it:
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4071

So all in all it's not a matter of throwing a simple option in and being done
with it.  I realize that your particular use case is probably one of the
simpler ones to deal with.  But it's by far the least common use case that we
hear complaints about with respect to the pristine store.

Please realize that considerable thought has gone into this.  It's just not
done yet.


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:

 Absolutely, the answer here isn't a one size fits all.  Nobody is objecting to
 the idea of allowing this.  The problem is that the code is not designed to
 allow this and it's a ton of work to change that.  I can think of a good 10
 other things that would require the same level of effort that would improve
 things for a lot more people

 Once you no longer need a pristine there are a lot of potential scenarios that
 require different behaviors.  So it's not even a simple matter of just 
 changing
 the working copy library to support pristines not existing.  It becomes
 thinking about how to deal with these scenarios (not that all of them need to
 be implemented immediately, but you probably want to not pigeon hole yourself
 into an implementation that doesn't support them).

I guess I don't understand why it couldn't be as simple as having the
library get a pristine copy on demand if some operation needs it.
Isn't there already a recovery procedure for a missing pristine file?
 And then make saving it optional.

As a case in point, consider the accumulation of cruft on a typical
jenkins build server where a large set of projects are built and
rarely removed -  you have to allow much more disk space to each build
slave to accommodate the pristine files that don't have a whole lot of
use.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com


Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Ryan Schmidt

On Dec 11, 2013, at 19:19, Les Mikesell wrote:

 Also, it would mean you would need a constant connection to the server to
 use a subversion working copy.
 
 That's hardly a problem these days,

You apparently don’t try to work at the kinds of coffee shops I go to, where 50 
college students are all watching youtube videos and making the network 
unbearable and Subversion’s ability to do some things offline very valuable to 
me.




Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Ben Reser
On 12/11/13 7:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 I guess I don't understand why it couldn't be as simple as having the
 library get a pristine copy on demand if some operation needs it.

The original wc code had almost no abstraction around the pristines (as far as
I can recall, it's been a long time since I looked at it).  WC-NG has more
abstraction around them than I recall (I just went and looked).  There is a
function that retrieves a stream for a pristine, but it doesn't seem to be used
everywhere.  There are an awful lot of places where it seems we're just passing
around the filename (many of which appear to me to be passing through several
different layers of the libraries).  Someone needs to untangle this mess and
get every use of the pristine using a definitive abstraction that can then be
made to handle missing pristines.  That's not a trivial task.

 Isn't there already a recovery procedure for a missing pristine file?

No there is not.  You delete a pristine the working copy is busted.




Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement

2013-12-11 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Ryan Schmidt
subversion-20...@ryandesign.com wrote:

 On Dec 11, 2013, at 19:19, Les Mikesell wrote:

 Also, it would mean you would need a constant connection to the server to
 use a subversion working copy.

 That's hardly a problem these days,

 You apparently don’t try to work at the kinds of coffee shops I go to, where 
 50 college students are all watching youtube videos and making the network 
 unbearable and Subversion’s ability to do some things offline very valuable 
 to me.

Some things...  But not the things you really need to complete any
amount of actual work - like updates and commits.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com