On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:11:50PM -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
> In a message dated: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:53:44 CST
> Florin Iucha said:
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >It is common at every UNIX shop I have worked.
> >All the developers have a PC for Office which also runs Exceed. All
> >the work is done on big Solaris/AIX/SGI servers.
>
> Why not just run Linux on the desktop and NFS mount the file system?
> It seems that would be a lot less of a hassle than dealing with
> Exceed! (cheaper too :)
I will kindly forward your suggestion to our MIS director. I will let you
know how that improves my careeer 8^)
> However, I think what Ben was referring to was more the 'distributed
> development model', which is which CVS's sweet spot. It was
> specifically designed to deal with the use case of distributed
> developers *not* sharing the same disk, which is also where SVN is
> headed. For locations where developers are all on the same local
> network, sharing local disk space, products like ClearCase seem to be
> far more prevalent (and expensive!).
How about our company which has developers from Hamburg to Cincinnati
to St. Paul to St. Diego to Bombay? All the developer sites have big
honking Solaris machines.
> If you're users are all on PCs with Exceed, wouldn't it make more
> sense for them to use something like SVN where they can check out the
> code from the 'big Solaris/AIX/SGI servers' to their local disk, then
> check in to merge with others? They must have gobs of spare disk
> space on their local drives?
How about compiling and debugging? We are not just editing text files.
The local disk is on Windows machine.
> >A good solution might be to get replicated repositories working.
> >Whomever wants a local copy of the repository can get a slave on his
> >machine. At that point all the duplication of files can go away.
>
> While I agree with the idea of getting replicated repos working, I
> fail to see how that solves the current dilemma of having several
> people who share a disk not duplicating data. If they share a disk,
> and clone the master repo, now you have 16 repos floating around plus
> 15 working copies. As it is now, you have 1 repo with 15 working
> copies. Did I miss something somewhere?
It matters if they are 15 thin copies or 15 thick copies.
The code for having a smart/fat worklocation can be ripped out. If you
need source "near you", you can create a slave repository "near you".
That might mean one slave per (development server group)/site.
florin
--
"NT is to UNIX what a doughnut is to a particle accelerator."
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Mar 11 21:26:46 2003