Re: Debian Subversion repository?
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 03:19:26PM +0200, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> I use subversion for a project at work, and it should be said that
> subversion is not yet of "production quality". That is I've screwed up a
> CVS repository only once in many years, while I have to run subversion
> recovery tools almost every week (and during the last 3 months, I had to
> re-initialize my svn repository from scratch from the last backup).
> Subversion 0.20-1 seems much more stable than the previous versions, but
> people using subversion for "important work" should be warned that
> frequent (at least daily) backups at necessary.
Well, let me add in some additional anecdotal evidence :-)
I have been running Subversion since July 2002 at http://svn.complete.org/
to manage several projects of varying degrees of complexity, size, and
activity. My repository has been running on both FreeBSD and Linux. To
date I have suffered exactly zero repository problems. That is, there has
never once been any repository corruption with my data.
The point I'll grant you is that you sometimes have to do a svn dump
followed by a svn load when you upgrade Subversion. However, this seems to
be far less frequent of late.
At my workplace, I maintain an internal Subversion repository for all the
code and documentation I work on. It is of fairly significant size by now,
and also has never once been corrupted at all.
By contrast, I have had several problems with CVS. The lack of the ability
to properly remove, rename, and move around directories is a prime
hindrance, and has caused me to corrupt branches more than once. Yes, you
can blame user error (which it was), but OTOH, no matter how hard you try,
you can't shoot yourself in the foot with Subversion because it keeps a
history of *everything* and you can just revert back to where you were
before you tried to branch out if you really FUBAR it.
> This tendancy to screw up its repositary aside, subversion is very nice
> and practical to use, but its current instability tends to shadow this.
Well I disagree with your premise there.
-- John
Reply to: