| 1 |
On Monday 26 January 2004 02:00, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> What are the failures of Subversion and/or arch? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Subversion is in general not really good with really big repositories like the |
| 6 |
portage tree. Checking in an out a whole tree takes too much time for |
| 7 |
example, and there are wories (not researched) about whether it will allow |
| 8 |
concurrent access (concurrent read access is no problem). In general |
| 9 |
subversion is not ready to support the portage tree in our point. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> To my mind, the web server dependency of subversion was a negative because |
| 12 |
> I was always dealing with small projects. However, I could see where |
| 13 |
> bundling this stuff up into a webserver could be a bonus for a large |
| 14 |
> project who already maintains their own web server. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You don't need to use it, but it is great if you have to deal with braindead |
| 17 |
admins that only let you use internet through a proxy because that would be |
| 18 |
safer. (As if I can't sent everything I want over CONNECT) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Paul |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 24 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 25 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 26 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives