[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: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2001-03-30 10:04:53 CEST

On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 09:39:50AM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Tripp Lilley wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. For the cases I've seen/used, a repository is local or remote. Never

> > 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".

That's my hope/intent. "Oh, yah, there's an Apache server in there. why do
you ask?"

> 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.

And if the SVN install preconfigures it for you? Just another little app

> 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)

I have two Apaches running on my system. No conflicts at all. I could run a
third on port 80, should I choose.

Oh. Actually, I have a third. It's running on another interface at port 80.

Why do you supposed there would be conflicts?

> > 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?

Ah. Now we get to it. You can install Apache on any machine that you want.
Nobody said the thing had to run on port 80. And you can install/run it from
/home/gstein/svn if you'd like.

I run a development Apache 1.3 on 8080 as "gstein". Apache 2.0 (as "gstein")
on 8081. Apache 1.3 on test.webdav.org, port 80. No issues, no problems.

So... Average Joe can definitely run an SVN Server (oh, sorry, Apache server
plus SVN :-). The question is whether the machine administrator will let
these things run continually. But hey... to run one while logged in? Surely,
an admin would be fine with that. For personal SVN servers, we'd simply have
Apache configured to start a single process/thread. If the server happens to
be used by many people, then Apache would just scale up the number of ready
workers. But an admin is not going to complain about a single process
hanging out while a user is logged in.

etc etc

Apache will increase the source footprint, but it doesn't necessarily create
an insurmountable barrier for Joe User. Just think "port 4734"


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006

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