Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:40:45 +0100 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <20130124104045.38001af1@suse3> In-Reply-To: <20130124085717.GA26673@icarus.home.lan> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <20130124093846.5e683474@laptop> <E10EBB96DCC143BE8F14FD2982AD84B7@white> <20130124085717.GA26673@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:57:17 -0800 schrieb 'Jeremy Chadwick' <jdc@koitsu.org>: > Though your OPTIONS recommendations work for you, they do not work for > everyone. Some people sit behind firewalls where HTTP or HTTPS are > the only viable means (native SVN or SVN+SSH will not work for > them). But then, cvsup/csup didn't work either, right? So, what did those people do in the days of cvsup? As for the whole dependency/license nightmare - there is some truth[1] in that and I'm sure, the people "in charge" are aware of it. I was always under the assumption that the switch to svn was more of a temporary stopgap solution where the benefits (progress of the FreeBSD project) out-weighted the deficiencies. The migration to a "better system" is supposed to be easier from svn than cvs... [1] I have the need to have mod_dav_svn in my subversion-package (because a customer needs it and I only want to maintain one pkgng-repo). Thus, every time svn is installed, apache gets pulled in, too. Awesome.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130124104045.38001af1>