Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
> For whatever reason, the documentation causes people to feel the
> primary or only method of access to the svn database is through Apache.
We've been working hard to change that perception, in the book, as well
as the FAQ and other website docs. Can you give us specifics? I see
someone say "we need apache?" in a slashdot post, but he's immediately
corrected by someone else. That tells me our campaign is working. :-)
> I've seen posts about dangers of running multiple users with ssh
> tunneled svnserve. Whats up with that? Please tell me this is typical
> slashdot misinformation. The programmer in me screams that this has to
> be something that the Berekely DB libraries should be dealing with and
> not Subversion. Even if this is not true, then svnserve itself should
> deal with that on some level relatively easily . . .
Using a database means taking some care so that different users don't
clobber permissions for each other on the database files. (CVS has the
same problems, really.) Read 'using multiple servers' at the end of
chapter 6 in the book. It's doable, but if you want the least headache,
you'll avoid file:/// and svn+ssh:// access completely, and only allow a
network server process to ever touch the database, via svn:// and http://.
If you're an svnserve user, take a look at the book again. It now has
its own built-in authentication and authorization. You don't have to
use svn+ssh:// to authenticate anymore.
>
> In my world, about the only thing I'd say is missing from Subversion
> is a nice clean built-in way of handling having files require exclusive
> check-out.
Yes, it's high priority for new post-1.0 features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 23 15:02:25 2004