Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Arthur Barrett wrote: > Also with CVSNT you are using something that is actively developed and > is stable, as opposed to SVN whose ability to corrupt its own repository > (and not just the btree one) is well documented. Whoa, you just stepped over the line from advocating your own product to denigrating someone else's product. To support such an outrageous claim, you need to cite, specifically, where repository corruption has happened (and by this I mean not due to disk failure). There are specific requirements of BDB (not btree) backend that can temporarily block the repository, but unrecoverable corruption has not been seen in a very long time (pre 1.0). Unlike you, apparently, I read both Subversion's dev list and cvsnt's list. I am aware of both the strengths and limitations of each product. You would do well to temper any enthusiasm for CVSNT with acknowledging that you are not an expert on the capabilities of Subversion. CVS - has been around for many years and has serious limitations; CVSNT - has been actively developed for fewer years and has admirably dealt with many of those limitations, but there is still code that hasn't been touched in years, that even the lead CVSNT developer doesn't know what it does; Subversion - has been written from the ground up in only the last few years, based on a completely redesigned model; the original goal was to be feature equivalent with CVS (*not* CVSNT), something that has already been achieved (with 1.0); new features are being added with the same cautious design standards as the original codebase. > I had discussions previously with some of the folks at OpenTV, and they > were also quite interested in repository replication. That's another > thing you can't do on SVN. Repository replication is built into the > core of CVSNT 2.5.03, and it will be extended in CVSNT 2.6 later this > year. Another thing you apparently know little about: http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/subversion/svnsync/ This is part of the current trunk development. It is also trivial to mirror Subversion repositories using SVK (which is a replacement client written in Perl, and also automatically handles merges and other features not present in the core Subversion). I don't think CVSNT is so weak a competitor that you need to cut down Subversion in order to build up CVSNT. Stick to what you know - CVSNT's many strengths - and leave Subversion's capabilities to someone who can be a strong advocate for Subversion. You do a disservice to CVSNT by relying on misstatements. John