At 11:01 PM 11/9/2006 -0800, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
> I know, I know.... the logic is incomplete though, if svn tends to be
> unavailable more often than builds, then putting all eggs into the svn
> basket
> would be unwise. I sure don't know that that is the case, I was just not
> convinced by the argument...
I don't understand that logic.
Currently:
svn | builds | can checkout and build
=====================================
no | no | no
no | yes | no
yes | no | no
yes | yes | yes
All in svn:
svn | builds | can checkout and build
=====================================
no | no | no
no | yes | no
yes | no | yes
yes | yes | yes
While I'm not advocating *either* approach, I do want to point out that
your tables above are misleading because they don't take uptime percentages
into account. If SVN and builds are up 99% of the time, for example, then
buildability is 98.01% uptime in the first scenario, and 99% in the second.
Thus, an argument for going to SVN should probably not focus on
reliability, but on such issues as speed, simplification, reduced server
maintenance, etc.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
