John Peacock <jpeacock@rowman.com> writes:
> Apart from the bandwidth required to transfer enormous files over a
> LAN link, both SVN and CVS are written to assume that the WC is under
> the exclusive control of one process. I don't know exactly what would
> be the worst case, but I could see one user in the middle of a large
> update while another begins a commit as being a problem. I don't want
> to spread FUD without cause, but I'm pretty confident that shared WC's
> are a bad idea.
Shared WCs are only a bad idea because our current implementation
doesn't handle the permissions sophisticatedly enough for it to work.
Here's the key mis-assumption:
> both SVN and CVS are written to assume that the WC is under
> the exclusive control of one process
Actually, both are written to be safe if multiple processes access the
WC. We deliberately tried to match CVS in this respect -- this is why
we have wc locks, in fact. But the real problem here is not multiple
processes per se, rather it is that the ownerships/perms on our
metadata currently make it difficult for different users to share a
working copy. That's what issue #1509 is about fixing.
(FWIW, I've done this different-users-sharing-a-working-copy thing
with CVS in real life. It worked out okay, though we had to do some
tweaking of Unix groups and umasks to make it go smoothly.)
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 10 21:40:43 2003