On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:06:08AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > I note that there is no libserf or serf RPM published, anywhere, for
> RHEL,
> > and it's not yet enabled for Fedora. That makes the serf libraries a bit
> > more awkward to integrate for testing. How much benefit is there in using
> > serf rether than neon for subversion-1.7.x? I'm developing a sneaking
> > suspicion that if anyone's going to bundle it for RHEL use, it's going to
> > be me, and I don't know if it's worth the effort.
>
> For now, don't bother with serf on RHEL. Just use neon.
> There are currently no considerable benefits. Rather, there are still
> issues with serf that neon does not suffer (which is why serf isn't
> the default yet).
>
> In some future release, using serf will result in more efficient checkouts
> and updates, e.g. by avoiding repeated download of content already present
> in .svn/pristine/
>
Cool, thanks. Dealing with the "compile and use neon locally" requirements
for RHEL 4 in some recent work were.... awkward, but backporting serf for
multiple RHEL releases would be burdensome if there's not a very real
benefit.
Received on 2012-04-21 13:32:00 CEST