I'm sorry if I'm being or sound judgmental. It's only a manifestation of
my frustration since last week we switched to Subversion and I am rushing to
set things up and get things going. I'm not at all angry but frustrated.
Everything's been rushed and of course managment always wants things
'yesterday'. And as is always the case, I have no clue when I'm or any of
us supposed to have time to read any kind of boring technical manual after
working a 10-12 hour hard day.
And it's so amazing people who got it working tell you how easy it is but
for new comers like me...it's another story. I've read the manual and posts
in the Email Group and followed everything to the 't'. I must be doing
In defense of CVS, I enabled mail on the linux server, tweaked 3 files
(but these 3 files were internal and integral parts of CVS, although CVS
allows you to write your own independent perl scripts if you don't like to
use their files. Am I wrong on this?) and on the client side, executed cvs
watch on and cvs watch add, voila. In defense of Subversion, it seems more
or less to have the same mechanics and innards. The only suggestion I could
give would be to have a 2 tier admin level: One where certain files are
pre-disposed to the version control and one has to add email to one, Repo
path to one, and args to another one, etc. And a 2nd tier for Advanced
Users and Admins. I would definitely like to see the Admin chapters to
include ample EXAMPLES so people like me become self-sufficient, instead of,
turning a forum upside down digging for answers. If the chapters were
thorough enough, one would really have no need to write to the news groups.
As I mentioned, whoever wrote chapters 1-3, did a great job by providing
ample examples but this was not the case on the more important chapters,
like the Admin chapters.
And I should mind my manners by telling you guys 1st that you're doing great
work with your contributions and don't mind and ignore my frustration. I'm
sure I'll just get used to Subversion like any other software tool.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ben Collins-Sussman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: S I <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: SVN Post Commit Email Notifications
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:26:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com ([18.104.22.168]) by
mc8-f8.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 29 Aug 2005
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (dsl092-129-143.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net
[22.214.171.124])(authenticated bits=0)by sanpietro.red-bean.com
(8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id j7TNQ4fA002165(version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:26:05 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2005 23:26:11.0896 (UTC)
On Aug 29, 2005, at 6:07 PM, S I wrote:
>You opinion is BIASED as well since you work on SVN as a developer!
>Things should NOT be so hard to configure and administer.
I think it's a bit odd of you to judge a product based on one tiny
pluggable server-feature. Did you set up CVS to send mail recently? Was
I apologize that I've not followed your tribulations closely. I'm not sure
what problems you've had, or why you've had them. The basic concept behind
a repository hook is about as simple as it can be:
1. The hook script runs as whatever process is doing the commit. (In
your case, this would be the apache process.) Set permissions/ ownership
2. The hook script runs with no predefined environment. So you need to
make sure that you use absolute paths (instead of relying on $PATH).
Given your experience, how would you recommend we change Subversion, or
hook feature? What would make post-commit hooks easier to use? I'm
looking for constructive criticism here, rather than angry insults.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Aug 30 02:14:07 2005