Re: subversion fud...and rcs old timers..

Lindsay, Phil wrote:
> We are in the midst of conversion from clear case to subversion.
> Apparently someone in-house built a version of subversion on fedora 1
> (probably incorrectly?) and had a issue with a wedged/locked db file. This
> raised concerned form rcs folk about the security of source code
> should a db file become corrupted, etc...

A wedged db hasn't lost any data.

> Folk read Ben's fud note, but there is still some fear, if a db file is
> partially damaged is it recoverable sans backup?

Depends on the extent and type of damage.

> Have there been any
> issues between subversion versions and db structure?

I don't understand the question.

> Looking for any
> info that can help dispel the fear in some old time rcs folk (yes,
> they used to hack rcs files and are looking for analog to vi
> + rcs files).

Well, If it really comes to that, the equivalent to vi is a scripting language with berkeley DB bindings.

But, seriously, all you have to do is implement a sensible backup regime.

You can even use post-commit hooks to save incremental dumps of new revisions as they are committed, until the next actual backup.

Max.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 2 20:04:29 2004