[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Installation [was Re: transaction roots]

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: 2001-03-30 09:39:50 CEST

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Tripp Lilley wrote:

> Just as a side note, I recently installed CVS for the first time (someone
> was holding a gun to my head). One of the things that bugged me was the
> disconnect between "local", "remote", and "external" access to the repo.
>
> To my admittedly small mind, I'd prefer a system that declared itself as
> being "a network app" that happened to work locally through the magic of
> the localhost interface or perhaps domain sockets :) As an administrator
> and user, it helps me to not have to keep track of the difference. As a
> coder / possible contributor, it helps me to not have to think of the
> "two houses, both alike in dignity" that need updating...

I think you're mixing things here. I've used many CVS repositories, and once
I've checked out the code I've never bothered about the "two houses" dilemma
as you describe it. A source code repository is usually singularis. There's
only one, be it local or remote.

> To that end, I propose that the lowered entry barrier is pretty simple
> really: when you build RPMs, BSD ports, etc., you have them include a
> stripped down Apache install with mod_dav and mod_dav_svn all configured,
> and all set to run on a different port and to use a different set of
> directories for config, libraries, etc. In that sense, Apache, mod_dav,
> and mod_dav_svn are all just "part of the installation".

I'd really not like that. For a number of reasons, but these are the two
main ones I can immediately think of:

1 - we're not always system administrators when we want to run SVN on a few
    simple files. requiring apache is an immense barrier in that scenario.

2 - even when we are system administrators, we might just want to have a
    bunch of local files in the repository. Requiring Apache and even
    featuring apache in the install procedure will make possibly dreadful
    collisions and weird setup quirks for people that already have apache
    installed and up and running (compared to using SVN on a local
    repository)

> Anyone who cares about the fact that you're running "another" copy of
> Apache is someone who cares enough to install it themselves by hand, to
> their specific liking. Your "weekend warrior" who just wants SVN to
> manage a small repo for personal use is likely to be just grabbing the
> RPM and going, anyway.

What about the "weekend warrior" who uses a machine he can't install servers
on?

-- 
      Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.