> -----Original Message----- > From: t...@elba.apache.org [mailto:t...@elba.apache.org] On Behalf Of Trent > W. Buck > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:38 PM > To: users@subversion.apache.org > Subject: Re: Breaking up a monolothic repository > > Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Trent W. Buck <trentb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Ryan Schmidt <subversion-20...@ryandesign.com> writes: > >> > >>> As someone used to Subversion's usually sequential revision numbers, > >>> that bugs me aesthetically, but it works fine. > >> > >> I think that's the crux of it. > > > > Have you checked if the users have/need anything (emails, ticket > > system, etc.) that refer to specific revisions or the history of > > changes made there? It seems kind of drastic to throw that away > > because you think the numbers aren't pretty enough. > > That is an extremely valid point. I'll check. > > >>Also part of the reason to split up the repos is to make access > >>control easier, and it looks bad if Alice (who should have access to > >>project 1 but not project 2) can see Bob's old commit metadata to > >>project 2, even if she can't see the commit bodies after the split. > > > > How does this work now in the combined repository? > > Right now, they don't have it with the combined repo. Anyone in the svn group > can read everything. (This is one of the reasons they want to break up the > single repo into per-project repos.)
You should knock the reason off the list. You can set up path based authorization fairly easily. (especially compared to braking it up into multiple repos.) BOb
