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

[Theo Zourzouvillys]

On Wednesday 26 May 2004 15:00, Greg Varga wrote:

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

and for the client it can use webdav, so there are plently of clients for 
accessing the repositor.

> 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.

yes - users can be sroted nicly in whatever format you want,and assign certian 
users to edit certian files, so you say that everyone in group 'digium' has 
full read-write acess, authour x has permission only on /channels/chan_x.c, 
etc,etc - good for large projects wiht lots of developers.

> 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. :)

the most important hting is it can push updaes back to CVS so you can migrate 
slowly, by letting users carry on using CVS.

it uses berkeleydb for backend, so everyhting is fully transactional, and you 
can trust the data integrity pretty much as well as you can berelerydb 
itself.  *if* somethign was to happen, you can easily roll back - and there 
are always binlogs for any big fuckups.

I have been pushing subversion a lot in the last few months, i've been using 
it for a fair while now on 3 projects, one of which is a fairly large source 
tree, without any problems.

as steven mentioned, files and projects can be 'symbolic' links to other, 
remote or local ones.

infact, i've not heard of anyone wiht any problems with it all all - only 
people with praise (other than the 'CHANGE IS EVIL!' people), i'd actually 
like to head somethign bad about it.

> 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)

if yanyone has a spare 5 minutes and wants to be horrified, open up cvss 
source, and be very scared :)

imo, svn is just cvs sensibilised and santitised, as it should have been many 
years ago.

 ~ Theo

-- 
Theo Zourzouvillys
theo at crazygreek.co.uk
http://www.crazygreek.co.uk/