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 <andrew@dunslane.net> 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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
