Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Fri 20th Feb 2004 06:00 UTC
On Monday, the Subversion project is scheduled to release version 1.0 of their version control system, under development for several years now. Subversion was intended from its inception as the CVS replacement and it comes with many important features previously found only on commercial VCS like Perforce. It was designed for better remote performance, and it is multi-platform with a GUI/CLI front-end.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
RE: Shawn
1) It's just a file.
A) Still a DB, Oracle can be just a file but it's still a DB in the file.
2) All major functions such as moving, renaming, deleting, etc. are handled through the subversion client by whomever is committing changes to the repository
A) Never Argued this, it's an advantage of the DB.
3) Just about any administrative functions that would have to be performed are again done by subversion.
A) Maybe maybe not. If the DB file becomes corrupted the SA has to fix this. (Allow me to remind readers of the DB bug with RPM's. For a long time rpm --rebuilddb was a popular command.)
4) Daily Backups.
A) If the SA's actually back the DB up correctly then this works well but you cannot just save the DB file to tape. You have to insure the file aka DB is shut down before writing to tape. OR use DB tools to dave the deltas OR aquire locks on items before saving. With the file system you have the same issue but an open file on;y effects one source file.
Also if the FDb file gets corrupt it may wipe out ALL of the source files. (And yes this has happen to me)
All systems have risk, the more layers and complexity the greater the risk. Subversion is a nice upgrade to CVS but it's not the end all. At a point projects may need to move to change control systems like PVCS.
> Subversion has proven itself fairly reliable to host
> extremely large projects such as GtkRadiant
> (http://www.qeradiant.com/) which has gigabytes of data
> in it's code repositories
So They have 1 DB4 file that is multiple gigabytes in size. This is a risk That is one multiple gigabyte DB that needs to be manage correctly. And I will say this without proff but feel it's more than likely true... Subversion is the wrong solution to their source control needs. I would imagine the need a full blow change management system like PVCS by now.
Note: For the record PVCS does run on top of Oracle.
Note: I'm not saying a DB is a bad thing but it has more
risk to it. I can show examples of large scale
projects run with an excel spreadsheet. The
underlying risk I'm talking about is the new layers
of code andthe fact there is a DB that should
, shall, or may, need to managed as a DB not
a lack box that will never fail.
Donaldson