On 7/7/05, Patrick Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Clarify, please? I don't understand this comment. > the use of libneon (is it finally stable, after 5 years?), apache2 with > their > own module - or alternatively ssh+svnserve (which needs full blown > accounts > on the machine for every dev or user table hacks). > and svk is even another layer on top of that (in perl, pulling in quite > some runtime) > > "too many unstable components"
The company I work for along with several others that I know of, has been using subversion for a very long time now, long before 1.0 was released for all source code management within the organization and in many cases where gigabytes of data are being managed as well. I have no question in it's integrity and stability especially as of the new 1.x stable series release. The performance of SVN is very good especially when using the now stable fsfs backend, and we have never lost data or had other corruption problems in the entire time we've been using SVN. While I don't claim it's perfect, I believe it is more reliable than the other systems that you mentioned. If only because it's use is far more widespread than some of those alternative systems, and because of my own fairly long-term experience. As far as layers upon layers, that's the UNIX philosophy to me. Lots of little pieces that do their job really well and that when combined together provide a good solution. I will have to agree to disagree with your current stance, and as you said, you haven't been following svn development closely. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
