> From: Chia-Liang Kao <clkao@clkao.org>
> The design decision to use the Subversion fs in svk was mainly because
> someone will eventually replaced the bdb implementation when people
> are enough with the overhead. But frankly using the underlying libraries
> of Subversion isn't too bloated, until you start to use the wc library.
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:25:54PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> > For those of you familiar enough with arch to understand this and with
> > due respect to svk: one perhaps interesting idea is to store arch
> > project trees in SVN locally and then use arch archives and operations
> > to coordinate flow between archives. Bloated but featureful.
Gack.
When I said "bloated but featureful" I did _not_ mean "Subversion is
bloated" or "arch is bloated". (I happen to believe both of those
but that isn't what I was talking about.)
What I meant is that a very simplistic union of the two systems
("storing arch project trees in subversion") could be accomplished in
a way that doesn't impact either code base much if at all. The result
of such a simplistic union would be bloated. For example, it would
have two distinct interfaces for on-line help, depending on which
features you are interested in. It would require installing two
different packages. etc. Such things could be either left that way,
or papered over, or addressed deep down. But initially, the
_combination_ would be a bloated way to present the functionality the
combination offers --- but perhaps quite useful nonetheless.
Just to reiterate: the idea being to give users a toolset which has
the familiar CVS-like feel for minute-to-minute work, and the handy
arch feel for inter-hacker and inter-organizational process
coordination. If you know what I mean.
Hey, I may hate subversion but I love it too.
-t
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 11 18:30:33 2004