On Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008, Paul Albrecht wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 07:47 +0100, Ph. Marek wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 23. Januar 2008, Paul Albrecht wrote:
> > > Who maintains asvn? What is the status of asvn?
> >
> > Depending on your use-case you might want to take a look at FSVS:
> > http://fsvs.tigris.org/
>
> I don't think fsvs makes much sense for me because I'm not using the
> archive script to backup/restore a file system.
I'm not sure what you mean by "archive script" here - it's not asvn, is it?
> What I have is a file system I use for installing linux on a thin client
> over a network. What I'd like to be able do is track over time the
> various hacks I need to make to my file system.
FSVS is not just backup/restore - it does *versioning* of full directory
structures, just like subversion or asvn. But it is designed for fast
operation on many entries - so it automatically adds/removes files, and so
on.
You're right, the title is a bit misleading. I changed it.
> This usually involves
> making changes to bash scripts and, occasionally, updating some binary
> files.
>
> Originally, I considered using cvs or git, but the former doesn't handle
> binaries very well and the latter doesn't doesn't handle meta data so I
> decided to try subversion.
>
> The archive script more a less works with a few nits here or there so I
> was wondering it's worth fixing them? For example, another problem with
> using the archive script is that subversion has a problem with file
> names containing the at-sign.
As asvn uses the svn binary, you have the .svn directories scattered all over
the data ... just another difference to FSVS.
Well, I'd suggest you try FSVS ... I'm doing more or less similar things, and
FSVS is *way* faster for that purpose.
Regards,
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-01-25 06:26:51 CET