On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 08:32, STF SVN wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 22:40, David Weintraub wrote:
>>
>> The standard 'svn' protocol is faster, but it uses port 3690 by
>> default. It is very likely that your VPN will block traffic to this
>> port.
>
> Why so?
Sane network security polici
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 22:40, David Weintraub wrote:
>
> The standard 'svn' protocol is faster, but it uses port 3690 by
> default. It is very likely that your VPN will block traffic to this
> port.
Why so?
> You can start svnserve on another port, and you can use ssh+svn
> which allows fo
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 16:40, David Weintraub wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:59 AM, STF SVN wrote:
>> I already have a working SVN server using HTTP, but I'd like to see
>> some other alternatives, especially those which could provide better
>> performance. The problem right now is that som
On Jul 29, 2010, at 15:40, David Weintraub wrote:
> Subversion is known for simplicity, ease of use, but speed isn't one
> of them. The entire .svn directory thing slows Subversion down --
> especially since the entire diff is kept in there.
I wouldn't say Subversion is inherently slow at all. Y
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:59 AM, STF SVN wrote:
> I already have a working SVN server using HTTP, but I'd like to see
> some other alternatives, especially those which could provide better
> performance. The problem right now is that some users are accessing
> the SVN within a VPN tunnel and thin
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 07:16, David Weintraub wrote:
>
> Are you setting up a Subversion repository and don't know whether you
> should use HTTP or SVN, or does your repository allow you to access
> your Subversion repository both ways, and you want to know which to
> use.
>
> SVN is usually quick
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Alec Kloss wrote:
> On 2010-07-08 17:04, David Brodbeck wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> > A local comparison is often best, especially when operating over HTTPS
>> > or svn+ssh for security reasons: Because of the continuing sto
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:15 AM, STF SVN wrote:
> As we have two protocoles, svn and http, available for
> subversion, I'd like to know if there's any performance comparison
> study on both of them to let us choose the most appropriate one.
> Anyone has any related article on that?
Are you set
On 2010-07-08 17:04, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > A local comparison is often best, especially when operating over HTTPS
> > or svn+ssh for security reasons: Because of the continuing storage of
> > HTTP/HTTPS/svn/SSH passwords in clear-text by
On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> A local comparison is often best, especially when operating over HTTPS
> or svn+ssh for security reasons: Because of the continuing storage of
> HTTP/HTTPS/svn/SSH passwords in clear-text by the UNIX or Linux
> versions of Subversion, I don't
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: laps...@gmail.com [mailto:laps...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of STF SVN
>> Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 22:15
>> To: users@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: How to choose between svn & http?
>>
>> As we have tw
> -Original Message-
> From: laps...@gmail.com [mailto:laps...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of STF SVN
> Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 22:15
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: How to choose between svn & http?
>
> As we have two protocoles, svn and http, available for
> subversion, I'
12 matches
Mail list logo
