On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:39:34PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> It's not a link to the protocol spec itself, since it's only available via
> NDA. The author states,
>
> "The main problem is that the SCC interface was not designed for anything
> like CVS. The mapping between CVS semantics and the SCC interface is
> awkward at best."
>
> I wonder to what degree Subversion makes for a better map. I'm sure there
> are some things which neither CVS nor SVN do for good reasons (exclusive
> locks, for example) but I'm curious whether it could be made to work. If
> so, we might be able to get fundage to implement it.
>
> Has anyone looked at this before?
>
> Brian
Here are some of the things I remember about scc from some previous
examination.
- You used to be able to get the scc interface. i dont think you can
anymore. ie. no new nda's. I believe the push was for people to
use ole automation (aka com) instead.
- Someone at one time actually reverse engineered parts of the api.
I remember seeing the website & api/header info. Unfortunately I
no longer have a copy of this information (sorry...)
--John C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:51 2006