> I don't think it is a bad thing at all. CVS requests the same sorts of
> things from its administrators. It just happens that CVS has been around
> longer and people know what those niggly maintenance burdens are. CVS also
> looks a lot like plain old files in a hierarchy, so that helps too.
Uhhhh ... what maintenance does CVS require?
I've been using CVS for damned near forever at this point, on some
fairly big projects, and I don't recall ever having to do, well, anything
to keep it working (beyond 'back up the filesystem').
I'm sure that there are situations where CVS needs some backend work (like
the aforementioned 'corruptions' and 'stale locks', both of which an
administrator _shouldn't_ have to deal with), but your average admin for
your average CVS install won't really need to know about any of that.
And honestly, if someone told me "unless you actively administrate this CVS
repository, it's going to grow in size extremely rapidly, without bound,"
I'd just keep on walking and find another tool. I'm sure a lot of people
would do the same for subversion.
Subversion should work -- and work reasonably well -- out of the box, for
any normalish situation into which it is placed. I think 'work reasonably
well' should probably go as far as to mean 'should not require
administration' for the average case.
"Work reasonably well" certainly shouldn't require regular administration
with bdb tools, especially since your average administrator will probably
fix the size 'problem' with "db_archive -a -h | xargs rm". Why make them
go through the extra work?
-jay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 8 01:10:02 2003