>>>>> "Les" == Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com> writes:
Les> Reedick, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Except that preserving all history of everything forever is
>> impractical
>>> and at some point becomes impossible and will thus cause you to
>>> lose
>> it
>>> all. So it is not as evil as you might think to be selective
>>> about what you keep.
>>
>>
>> No, it is Evil as per FDA standards.
Les> But consider a likely alternative, where you run the repository
Les> out of space because you can't delete just to maintain unwanted
Les> disposable and/or reproducible content. Or on the opposite site
Les> you have people who avoid committing things because of the side
Les> effects that can't be undone.
>> It breaks build repeatability.
Les> A likely scenario is that the items in question are build
Les> targets, not dependencies, but you'd like them stored
Les> temporarily or for others to be able to access them without
Les> having to build their own.
Ok, so the real issue is that you want to use a SOURCE control system
to be an arbitrary database for arbitrary stuff, and Subversion
doesn't do that because it's a source control system.
I think maybe you're looking for an anvil and complaining because the
hammer you have doesn't make a good anvil... :-)
Personally, I would much prefer Subversion to concentrate on being an
efficient and reliable source control system, and not get distracted
by completely unrelated requirements that aren't just irrelevant, but
in fact harmless, to its mission.
By the way, have you tried doing what you want the regular way? Given
that Subversion (unlike CVS) does binary deltas, storing build output
-- even though that's not what Subversion is intended for -- may in
fact work just fine. Especially with today's big disk drives...
paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-03-12 20:23:55 CET