Tony Mee <A.J.Mee@ncl.ac.uk> writes:
> That just ain't going to please my sys op. EVER. Now why should I, as a
> sys op. and hence being the person that is ultimately going to install
> SVN or CVS pick SVN?
Because Subversion is better than CVS in dozens and dozens of ways.
Read the front page of the web site.
The truth is, it's designed first and foremost to be a client/server
system... meant to be networked. And that means hundreds of working
copies spread across hundreds of computers and hard disks. That
means minimum impact from the "extra disk" design, and maximum reward
on the "efficient network usage" aspect. That's the primary use case
for CVS.
The fact that you can access a repository directly on local disk was a
concession to a *much* less common use case: the poor student who
just wants to use svn to privately version stuff in her home directory
on some big unix machine on which she has no rights. Your use case is
unusual too: it's not so common to have 15 developers all sharing a
single disk.
> So really it's a case of:
> a) moving the diffing routines from client process to the server process
> b) altering the diffing process to get the working copy across the
> network and pristine copy from the repository
> c) altering the commit routines to recieve the differences from and
> local process instead of over the network
>
> or maybe better put at a case of moving some streams about and the
> position of a process in those streams. Not really any new code?
>
> Bearing in mind I don't know the code too well (yet). Where is the can
> of worms kept?
The can of worms is libsvn_wc. But please don't go there. You're
going to get run down by a gigantic truck. People have discussed this
topic over and over again: many people want it. But people who have
been working on this codebase for nearly three years still can't
fathom how incredibly difficult this change will be. We've
deliberately tabled the discussion until we reach 1.0. No mere mortal
will be able to just "jump in and rewrite the code." A zillion
threads of code all depend on the assumption that the pristine copies
are present; your description above doesn't even scratch the iceberg.
Not to discourage you or anything, but unless you're willing to spend
the next 3 months coding 60 hours a week on this one problem, and
willing to work great miracles, and convince all the developers into
allowing it to happen before 1.0... you're probably wasting your time
for now. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 11 20:21:03 2003