[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: [Linux-cluster] Subversion?



Am Do, den 26.08.2004 schrieb Villalovos, John L um 20:20:
> linux-cluster-bounces redhat com wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 August 2004 10:48, Lon Hohberger wrote:
> >> It was _designed_ to handle distributed repositories (like BK).
> > 
> > Well, what wind is blowing, seems to be blowing in the direction of
> > Arch.  I'd be equally happy with either, and in any case,
> > much happier
> > than with CVS.  Does anybody else have a strong opinion?
> 
> I'd prefer to use Subversion.  It works through our proxy servers.  We
> already use it for some projects we connect to.

Wait, I had a problem here, my university seems to have any kind of
cisco transparent proxy which somehow has eaten my subversion-requests
(some strange errors in the client, usually only on commit, update
worked fine), after I moved my server away from port 80 the problem
disappeard. I don't know what they were doing (I am only a student, not
an administrator).

> If you are going to stick with your centralized development model then
> CVS or Subversion is probably the way to go.

Subversion

> Plus Subversion comes with Fedora Core 2 by default.  Not sure about GNU
> Arch.
> 
> The change from CVS to SVN (Subversion) is very very easy.  I am not
> sure that we can say the same about going to GNU Arch.  (Note: I have
> never used GNU Arch).

Thats really true, if you have used cvs before, you need round about
5-10 minutes untill you can do all the things an average cvs user does
day by day.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]