On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > Where did you hear that?
The Internets via Google. :) > I did that, and I ended up with corrupted repository. But it was a few > years ago, probably svn 1.2. So maybe they improved it since then? > > IMHO, there's no reason *not* to lock down the repo directory, and run > everything through svnserve. It's the only way (aside from apache) that I > feel the repo is safe. Plus suddenly you can access it from windows clients > and make it available to other networks and so on. (IMHO, tortoisesvn and > tortoise diff are enormous value-adds.) > > Also if you're using file:/// to access the repo, does it keep track of > which users made which changes? We currently front with Apache 2.2 + mod_dav_svn + authn tied to AD via mod_ldap + authz via mod_authz_svn. Were happy with this. Apart from many CVS/RCS repos coming out of the woodwork, moving in, and constraining the disk where we store repos. ;) Also fwiw, all clients are at least 1.5+ for merge info data purposes; servers are 1.6+. What was the format of the repo(s) during the 1.2 days when you hit corruption issues? bdb? I believe that with 1.2, fsfs became the default format for new repos ... _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
