Re: [tlug] SVN: Your Environment, BerkleyDB/Web or FSFS?

[Ian Wells <ijw@example.com>]

On 11/29/05, Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com> wrote:

On 11/29/05, Jim Tittsler <jwt-tlug@example.com> wrote:
Seriously, I saw some nasty wedging with BDB when I upgraded
Subversion 1.0 to 1.1. This might have been an artifact of my version
of BDB on Solaris 8, but all I know is that FSFS has never caused me
any trouble, and I have never seen this bad news with it:

I moved over because I'd read that FSFS was less platform-specific.  When you've got a machine with Windows svn binaries and cygwin ones and you're concerned that someone might mix and match, this is a minor issue.  Anwyay, it seemed to improve the performance (as would moving from svn 1.0 to 1.2, I imagine...)

I run SVN with the regular svnserve, not as a WebDAV module. As I
mentioned in my presentation, this is mainly because WebDAV was a bear
to setup and I did not have the time to get it working. I imagine that
WebDAV is the way to go, since it gives you all the super-fly Apache
access controls for free.

Is there any other reason to do this?  I've never really worked out what advantages you get with webdav - but, to be honest, I've never really worked out why the svn developers would be interested in supporting 2 protocols, either.

I use the standard, CLI SVN client. As should you. Though Trac is
great for project management and bug tracking, and integrates *nicely*
with SVN.

I work with some TortoiseSVN adherents (the Windows Shell plugin) and I second the Trac integration, although it means that I wouldn't want just anyone looking at the contents of Trac, as they get to see all our commit messages...