On Nov 4, 2003, at 7:56 PM, Files wrote:
>> I really don't like the idea of supporting this kind of hack. We have
>> two real solutions for accessing a repository over a network already,
>
> We have a way to access a networked repository across nfs/cifs/smb w/o
> running
> a server?
>
> Kewl. What do I have to do to run it?
>
> And if we don't, does the fact that this ONLY takes place if the user
> specifically adjusts the lock.conf file make it any better?
>
> It truly is passthru otherwise.
>
> Just my two cents. Not married to it, but it seemed like something
> that would
> come up repeatedly when subversion was being used in a strict
> environment w/
> lots of red tape.
No, we don't. We let you run a server. That's the way the software
was designed to work, and giving people a way to cripple it to work
around the fact that they're stuck with network nazis who won't let
them install a server is stupid. They should convince their network
nazis to let them run a server (since if you have to go through this
hellish procedure to install a server, you probably should have to do
so to switch a version control system anyway), or they can patch their
own copy before installing it.
I just don't feel comfortable including such a blatant hack in our
tree, since it implies that we think it's an acceptable workaround, and
personally I don't think it is. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for
some people, but if you're in a situation where the biggest issue
keeping you from using Subversion is the fact that you have to run a
server, you likely have bigger issues you should be dealing with.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 5 02:05:57 2003