Greg Stark wrote: > > >>>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS > >>>>> repository is only 260MB, > > So apparently this is a limitation of svn2cvs. It uses a lot more space to > represent tags and branches than would be required if they had been created in > svn directly. Unfortunately it's a hard problem to solve any better than it > is. > > > Markus Bertheau wrote: > > > >> Here's what the subversion book has to say about that: > >> > >> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/svnbook-1.1/ch05.html#svn-ch-5-sect-1.2.A > >> > >> We use svn over ssh and recently switched to fsfs because of the umask > >> problem and because read-only access to bdb causes writes to the > >> database. > > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This just reinforces Tom's well-made point about maturity/stability. I rejected > > using SVN on another project a few months ago for just this sort of reason. > > I'm not sure what this says about maturity, you realize read-only access to > CVS also does writes to the repository? There are patches to change this > floating around but it's never been merged "upstream" because there is no > "upstream" maintainer any more. I guess if you want mature software you can't > get any more mature than using orphaned packages.
When software reaches perfection, it doesn't need a maintainer. (Bruce ducks for cover.) LOL -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
