Stephen Connolly wrote:
On 10 June 2010 06:34, Richard England <rlengl...@verizon.net <mailto:rlengl...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 06/08/2010 01:48 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:On Saturday 05 June 2010, Richard England wrote:You can easily have multiple concurrent accesses even without running two Apaches, e.g. concurrent file accesses by different users on the same machine, different svn+ssh sessions, multiple svnserve instances spawned by [x]inetd etc.Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is using FSFS. Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?In other words, it works. UliAndy, the rationale is to allow a team to migrate from one server to another over time rather than forcing them to move their working copies before it makes sense in their development process. They are aware they can use "svn switch --relocate" to update the working copes but this would make it a little more palatable for them. Than you Andy, and Uli.-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------/~~R/Why not just have the old server issue a 301/302 to the new server location (I can never remember which is moved permanently)?
I haven't tried it, but you should also be able to use apache's ProxyPass or a RewriteRule that triggers a proxy to the new server to make it completely transparent.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com
