On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:17:57PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Also, because Subversion is based
> > on WebDAV, access to the database through a web
> > server is a freebee.
>
> This is a big point, could be emphasized even more?
>
> We have repository browsing _today_, for free. That's pretty
> amazing. :-)
It's not as good as it could be, though: with a vanilla web browser,
you can easily browse the top of trunk as if you'd checked it out, but
you have to use magic undocumented URLs to get at earlier (untagged)
revisions, and you can't see log messages or properties at all.
But I'm sure it will be easy to build a more elaborate system on top
of DAV.
> I wouldn't be so sure about that claim that there's no advantage to
> Arch's model. Everyone I ever talked to who actually used such a
> system on a daily basis (Bitkeeper) preferred it to the CVS
> centralized-repository style. That's not a huge number of people, but
> it was enough to make me think I might prefer it myself, if I ever got
> a chance to use it for a while.
Having used Bitkeeper on a daily basis back in 1999, I concur with the
preferences of the people you've been talking to. It is, however,
nice to have working copies safely segregated from the repository, and
convenient not to have *every* working copy be a complete repository.
It shouldn't be too hard to add a distributed mode to Subversion; in
fact, post 1.0, if no one beats me to it I mean to implement one
myself.
zw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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