Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:46:04 -0600 From: Craig Boston <craig@tobuj.gank.org> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: organization Message-ID: <20050329224603.GD86797@nowhere> In-Reply-To: <1112135353.749.84.camel@localhost> References: <319cceca0503281001792baf39@mail.gmail.com> <1112135353.749.84.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At the risk of going further and further off-topic from freebsd-hackers... On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 02:29:13PM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > Sounds like a bad situation there. On our server we use svn+ssh, except > for a few Windows clients that use https. (BTW our server is running > 4-STABLE and it's wonderful.) Hmmm, I initially didn't want to use that because I read that it suffers from the same security issues as CVS. The appeal of being able to fine-tune permissions and grant subversion access without shell access is quite luring. HTTP timeouts during long operations, on the other hand, suck. ( my server is woefully underpowered :-D ). Note to davsvn users with slow servers: http-timeout = 3600 is your friend. > Heh. :-) 1.1.3 is current now, but one can find mentions of a 1.1.4 > bugfix release being planned, as well as the (farther out) 1.2 release > with locking. Oh, I've been running 1.1.3 on both client and server since it went into ports (many dump/loads later). Just haven't taken the time to see what's new and compare to older versions. :) Craig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050329224603.GD86797>