[linux-dvb] Re: wiki?

[Johannes Stezenbach <js@convergence.de>]

Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > 
> > On 08.09.2004 21:43, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Well, that's your choice.
> 
> I want my files in plain text, so I'll stay with CVS (actually I'm only
> using RCS for my own stuff, because I don't need more).

I don't get why the storage format is important for you. For me
it is important that I can trust the software that handles the
archives. I think Berkeley-DB is widely used, so I would hope
it is trustworthy. If you have a shreddered RCS file a text editor
won't help you much to save your data.

> But since this is not a "repository war" discussion, I'll just end it
> here from my side. For me subversion is a no-go because it doesn't work
> with NFS and stores the files in a binary format. If the driver developers
> decide to switch to subversion, that's their decision and it's fine with
> me. If I can access the repository just like I access the current CVS
> repository, that's ok.

Most NFS versions have broken file locking, and if the filesystem
is mounted by multiple servers you also have coherency problems.
I wouldn't put any database or repository on NFS (or SMB etc.).
I guess you get away with it because you are the only user of your RCS
repository (i.e. no concurrency problems). But then svn would
probably work fine in this scenario, too.


Johannes