[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 10:26:18 CEST

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Greg Stein wrote:

> > 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)

[snip]

> Why do you supposed there would be conflicts?

I can't say there *will* be, and I surely couldn't argue about apache setup
issues with you! ;-) I'm just saying there's a risk. I don't know what kind
of weird setups and requirements people can have and use for their web
servers that the new one would have to use (or not have to use) as well.

This is not a very strong argument as I don't have any specific examples or
even a possible problematic scenario.

> 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.

Right, that's true of course. It could certainly run while the user is logged
in...

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

I agree. I'm not seeing any insurmountable barriers. I'm only saying that I
see advantages with the local-mode.

-- 
      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.