[linux-dvb] Re: wiki?

[Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@citd.de>]

On 08.09.2004 21:43, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > The only known "disadvantage" compared to CVS (which will be eliminated
> > in the upcoming 1.1 version) is that you couldn't use subversion on a
> > NFS-share, but i wouldn't use a versioning-system via a NFS share.
> 
> Well, that would be a show stopper for me.
> Why wouldn't it work with NFS?

It wouldn't be safe as subversion doesn't lock the repos-files.

If only a single user is using the repo than it doesn't is a problem.

But as you need write priviliges to read(!) the repo with the curreny
BDB version of the repo AFAIUTM(*) you may destory the repo just be
doing a concurrent "svn update".

> BTW: does subversion store everything in plain text files?

No.

Current version uses a Berkeley-DB as backing store. Next version will
support another way called "FSFS" (File System. As in Subversion the
content of a repo is also called file system they used the double "file
system" in the name to get less confusion)

But that will also be a binary and "none human manipulatable" version.

> That's something I absolutely want. I'd hate storing my sources
> in binary dumps.

I don't see a problem with this.

If you have to "absolutly(tm)" manipulate the repo that you can always
dump the repo into a "plain text" file and later recreate (a/the) repo
from the dump.

Or in other words, you can't manipulate a repo "directly" easily, but
with a bit of work you can if you want to.

For backup purpose you can dump the repo and backup the dump-file.




*: As Far As I Unterstand The Mater


Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.