[linux-dvb] Re: wiki?

[Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de>]

Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> 
> 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.

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).

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.

Klaus