Re: Switching to Subversion

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 11/13/06, Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:

> He provides pretty good arguments _against_ subversion

Based on false statements, like this one:

"The old Berkeley DB-based backend has been deprecated as unstable and
subject to corruption [..."

FSFS is the default, but the BDB backend was never "deprecated as
unstable". And, in the ChangeLog of the latest release, there's this
bit of information:

 A common problem with previous versions of Subversion is that
 crashed server processes could leave BerkeleyDB-based
 repositories in an unusable "wedged" state, requiring
 administrators to manually intervene and bring back online.
 (Note: this is not due to bugs in BerkeleyDB, but due to the
 unorthodox way in which Subversion uses it!)

 Subversion 1.4 can now be compiled against BerkeleyDB 4.4,
 which has a new "auto-recovery" feature. If a Subversion server
 process crashes and leaves the repository in an inconsistent
 state, the next process which attempts to access the repository
 will notice the problem, grab exclusive control of the
 repository, and automatically recover it. In theory (and in our
 testing), this new feature makes BerkeleyDB-based repositories
 just as wedge-proof as FSFS repositories.

>    And yes, Havoc, anyone seriously entertaining moving to SVN should have
>    their heads examined.

Ah, yes, a good technical argument.

                   /L/e/k/t/u