Subversion... was RE: [Asterisk-Dev] Solaris Port (was: asterisk-users: Re: Fedora Core 2 and Kernel 2.6)

[Greg Varga]

One big plus with SubVersion is that it is a much much better product on the
Server side.

Anon-CVS is not bad, because you build the server around the concept that
unknown / unauth'd users will be accessing it, etc.  You also have to setup a
system user for anyone needing Write access to the tree.

Subversion is alot better in this respect.  Its built around being a much more
secure product. You also don't need a system user if that user needs write
access - Infact you can (note, its an option) have multiple user/password files
for each tree you setup.

Now of course these are not "User" conciderations, but they are conciderations
non the less, and should be taken into account.

On the user side, SubVersion usually uses the http/https protocal... This means
that not only do you have direct access to the tree via your web broswer (ie:
http://svn.asteriskdocs.org/res_data ) but you can also access the tree's via a
proxy. (Altho I don't think many of us would need this)

There are probably alot more points I could bring up, but I just woke up and
this is all I can think of at this time. :)  I did look at alot of Versioning
Systems (OpenSource ones) and Subversion was the one I settled on myself - and
that was alot to do with it being like CVS on the user side, but much much more
secure. (Security was something that I really had to concider in my case)

Have a good one,
   --Greg

Steven Critchfield wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 08:25, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> 
>>>One of the things recently that caught my attention that would be of use
>>>to people tracking private patches to asterisk is the ability to mirror
>>>the tree. There is even some tools to be able to do "offline" work where
>>>you make a personal mirror and work from there then merge your mirror
>>>back to the main repository when you are back "online".
>>
>>For the Vexi project we are using Darcs -- it seems to work VERY well -- 
>>anyone can have their own repository and patches can be intermingled as it 
>>keeps the context of every patch entered.  
> 
> 
> I guess that is part of why I have been hesitant to broach the subject.
> Everyone has opinions that are on the level as what editor or what
> distro when it comes to what versioned source control to use. 
> 
> I don't want to push for a different source control unless there is a
> fairly large benefit to be gained. I'm still not sure yet that
> subversion provides a great enough benefit. I wish I was more proficient
> at it and therefore could turn a export of the CVS into a good example
> of what could be gained with svn. 
> 
> I guess my main point in the previous post is to get others thinking
> about what and how it could possibly be used to help those tracking
> private changes to move forward.