Rony Shapiro wrote:
>
> My question is as follows: Is there any *need* for me to install
> svnserve (or Apache2) for the team to work concurrently on the same
> repository, or does the svn client (command line or TortoiseSVN) provide
> all the functionality needed, especially concurrent access control so
> that we don't hose each other?
The answer is no, you could all map a drive to the NetApp
and use file:/// just fine, as long as the repository is created
with the FSFS backend, not the BDB one. BDB won't work over a network
filesystem, FSFS works fine.
The reason to put a server process in place is mostly a question of
"safety barriers". Because using file:/// access infers that each
client has direct access to the repository, a malicious, or broken
client could screw up your repository.
When you use a server process (svnserve or Apache), the only
operations that can be performed on the repository by clients
are the ones exposed by that server process. These don't let
the clients damage the repository in any way.
If you're happy with your backup strategy, and you trust your users,
the file:/// will work just fine.
From experience, I find that using Apache makes the most users
happy. You get free HTTP access to the repository for everyone,
you can implement access controls in any way that Apache supports,
and you protect the repository itself from direct modification.
That, and if you use the binary distributions, it only takes
about 2 minutes to download Apache, load the mod_dav_svn module
and point it at your repository.
daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 10 13:09:27 2005