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

Re: Slashdot article

From: Daniel Berlin <dan_at_dberlin.org>
Date: 2002-02-06 00:43:58 CET

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Tom Lord wrote:

> The Slashdot article is about arch (which we all know to be very cool), but
> it cites Tom Lord's comparison of arch to Subversion. Hmm. What to do?
> Not very complimentary -- the things he says are true, but Subversion is
> designed with different goals from Arch.
> If you find errors in the comparison or chart, please do let me know.

1. Subversion is not tied to berkeley db, the main implementation of
the fs layer just happens to be implemented on top of berkeley.
You could just as well replace it with one that was implemented on top of

Thus, saying that subversion requires that everything reside in a database
isn't right.
2. Subversion could be modified in less than a day to support
replicated repositories for scalability purposes. Berkeley supports this
stuff natively.

3. Subversion doesn't require you set up an apache server with the dav
module to make a repository. They work locally just fine.

4. Arch is not able to better recover from server disasters because the
files are dumb file systems. You could mirror the db just as easily,
or, as i said above, replication could be added easily.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:04 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.