>> How about a repository that is accessed using svn:// (svnserve -r) or
>> http:// from the inside and
>> svn+ssh:// from the outside? ...
> True, but this kind of setup is explicitly recommended against in
> Subversion's documentation. We recommend that people pick an RA method
> and stick with it.
I see. I might have missed this recommendation because it is inside a
section named "Supporting Multiple Repository Access Methods" and explains in great
detail how to do just that :-)
Seriously though, I am concerned that once decided, I will have to stick with this
method forever. Otherwise, if I change the repository access URL two years from now I will
lose the access to today's versions of the code.
Hardly a good option. In this sense host-relative paths are just as bad as the absolute ones.
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote on 01/25/2005 2:07 PM:
>
> On Jan 25, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Shurik O wrote:
>
>>>> I just don't see the point in introducing this in addition to
>>>> host-relative paths--how often does a repository move on a server?
>>>> I mean really? I just don't think that the overhead of yet another
>>>> relative form is a lesser evil than having to just deal with
>>>> externals in a moved repository every 30 years when you move a
>>>> repository on a server. Still -0.9 on this.
>>
>>
>> How about a repository that is accessed using svn:// (svnserve -r) or
>> http:// from the inside and
>> svn+ssh:// from the outside?
>>
>> The latter's repository path is very likely to be different from that
>> of the former.
>
>
> True, but this kind of setup is explicitly recommended against in
> Subversion's documentation. We recommend that people pick an RA method
> and stick with it.
>
> -Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 26 01:34:10 2005