Well assuming you're manually building your site by hand *and* you are one of the 12 remaining people in the known universe that know how svn branches work, I'm sure an svn based content management system is an excellent way to manually prepare your next site release.
The limitations of WebDAV are unfortunate, I was not aware of these. Let's hope Stephen's solution fares better. Judging by the instructions for using svnsubpub it just seems like a step backward, and it does not seem to be designed for automation. But I suppose I consider moving from anything "standard" unix-like to svn a huge step in the wrong direction. Kristian 2012/2/13 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: > Well we'll see how Ben gets on deploying my scp jail site deployer > servlet container on codehaus. > > If that goes well we could look at asking Infra about hosting a > similar app on ASF infra > > -Stephen > > On 13 February 2012 12:57, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: >> Infra@ is not friendly to the dav approach, so I'm not going there. >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Stephen Connolly < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 13 February 2012 07:05, Kristian Rosenvold >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > DAV has support for "lock" concept, which I somehow would >>> > assume a decent server-side implementation would map to a transaction? >>> > (I would rather improve dav_svn to make sure we can get 1 commit ;) >>> >>> I would have concern getting transaction time-outs... dav_svn is going >>> to be over http/https and given the "fun" deploying the mojo sites at >>> codehaus over webdav... [I am working with Ben on a SCP container that >>> can provide the fast site deploy we currently have @Apache to >>> Codehaus... I wonder if infra would be open to allowing that container >>> to run on apache hardware to allow effectively the same thing?] >>> >>> > >>> > Removed files should be quite simple; the server side file store is >>> enumerable >>> > and it would seem like a nice addition to the site plugin >>> > ("mirrorImage" or similar) >>> > I would really prefer adding features that has value to everyone >>> > >>> > As for a lower efficiency I'm sure that's real but do we really care ? >>> > (I'm assuming >>> > we can get 1 svn transaction and the overhead would be DAV ping-pong and >>> > maybe content comparison) >>> > >>> > Kristian >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> > >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
