On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 17:20 -0400, Ruslan Sivak wrote:
> >>> Just curious... Why would you want 2 different working copies
> >>> synchronized without committing to the repository and updating?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> We are using the working copies on the production server for our web
> >> site. They provide easy and fast updates (deployments) to the code.
> >>
> >
> > That seems to me like a good reason for making the only way to
> > change it be through the repository so you always have a clear
> > history. I wouldn't want a way to modify production without
> > committing first unless you have fast-changing binaries like
> > weather maps. Can't you ssh an 'svn update' on the server when
> > you want something new to appear there?
> >
> >
> We don't modify production (except in an emergency) except through svn.
> We do go on and do an update on one of the servers, and currently (as we
> are on windows), it propagates the changes to another server. I really
> don't want to have to replicate the changes manually, especially if we
> are going to add more servers to the farm.
>
> Now so far, most things that I see for linux are as good as the
> microsoft product /or better. DFS has it's weaknesses, but it's just
> awesome when you have small updates that need to be propagated. I can't
> believe that linux doesn't have anything similar.
Since you know when the update needs to be done, do it with
rsync over ssh to as many other places as necessary, or ssh
an 'svn update' command. It is a good idea to wrap these
operations in control scripts from the start so things adding
servers, dropping them out of a load balancer during the update,
etc. can be added if/when needed and the users just run the same
script to make a change.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 4 23:41:29 2006