Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Please avoid sweeping generalizations like that one; a great deal of
> large-scale use of CVS does not involve NFS in any way.
<rant>
I have to admit, I really don't care whether BerkeleyDB runs over NFS
or not. A BerkeleyDB environment is a far cry from a bunch of RCS
files with locks. It's a *database*. That means you should be using
a server, period. The fact that file:/// urls work at all is mainly
(1) an API sanity check, and (2) allows an individual user to keep a
private repository, when s/he may not have anything but a non-root
shell account.
But when you're talking about setting up multiple users to share a
database -- you've got to treat it seriously. There is no "just
create a repository and everyone pile on!" You set up a real server
process, with real authn/authz.
</rant>
Yes, perhaps subversion raises the barrier-to-entry for setting up a
shared repository. But in return, you get real database features,
like transactions, atomic commits, and rollback. That's the tradeoff.
That's "better" than CVS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 19 03:49:23 2003