On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Brass Tilde wrote:
> > > So don't make either one the default. Make the user choose the one they
> > > want, posting an appropriate message when they fail to do so.
> > Providing a choice is no excuse for not picking a good default.
> Provided one can determine a "good" default. For you it's FSFS. For
> others, BDB is just fine. In the future, a different one might be
> determined to be better for another group. SVNADMIN CREATE is executed
> exactly *once* for each repository; requiring me to think about that choice
> *once* for each repository I create is not going to put me off.
NOt when you know what those backends are. But when you want to play with
svn for your first toy projects... If you then get strange permission
problems because of BDB, then that might put you off. Of course, when you
create repos for something serious, you need to know what you're doing.
> It could also be argued that which backend to use is almost as important as
> the location of the repository, and *that* option isn't defaulted.
Huh? There you can't find a reasonable default.
> On the other hand, given it's lack of maturity, how do you know that making
> FSFS the default won't bring to light some flaw that engenders the same type
> of perception that BDB apparently has now? I know that's a big "if".
Because of the traffic on the users@ list. OK, no one knows how many fsfs
repos there are compared to BDB.
> > If you get an "please choose the FS backend" type of message, chances are
> > that people setting up a home repository will just pick one of the choices
> > (i.e. the first one?).
> I think the chances are bigger that they they'll read the book and determine
> which one is appropriate.
We can only guess about this, but ... ya' know... Users...
As I said, I think the default is mostly for beginners trying out svn.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Mar 22 21:13:15 2005