Re: [PATCH] Release candidate patch for adding external locking filecode to svn_repos_open

[Files <fi...@poetryunlimited.com>]

> I really don't like the idea of supporting this kind of hack.  We have
> two real solutions for accessing a repository over a network already,

We have a way to access a networked repository across nfs/cifs/smb w/o running
a server?

Kewl. What do I have to do to run it?

And if we don't, does the fact that this ONLY takes place if the user
specifically adjusts the lock.conf file make it any better?

It truly is passthru otherwise.

Just my two cents. Not married to it, but it seemed like something that would
come up repeatedly when subversion was being used in a strict environment w/
lots of red tape.

-- 
Shamim Islam
BA BS

>
> -garrett
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: [PATCH] Release candidate patch for adding external locking filecode to svn_repos_open

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On Nov 4, 2003, at 7:56 PM, Files wrote:

>> I really don't like the idea of supporting this kind of hack.  We have
>> two real solutions for accessing a repository over a network already,
>
> We have a way to access a networked repository across nfs/cifs/smb w/o 
> running
> a server?
>
> Kewl. What do I have to do to run it?
>
> And if we don't, does the fact that this ONLY takes place if the user
> specifically adjusts the lock.conf file make it any better?
>
> It truly is passthru otherwise.
>
> Just my two cents. Not married to it, but it seemed like something 
> that would
> come up repeatedly when subversion was being used in a strict 
> environment w/
> lots of red tape.

No, we don't.  We let you run a server.  That's the way the software 
was designed to work, and giving people a way to cripple it to work 
around the fact that they're stuck with network nazis who won't let 
them install a server is stupid.  They should convince their network 
nazis to let them run a server (since if you have to go through this 
hellish procedure to install a server, you probably should have to do 
so to switch a version control system anyway), or they can patch their 
own copy before installing it.

I just don't feel comfortable including such a blatant hack in our 
tree, since it implies that we think it's an acceptable workaround, and 
personally I don't think it is.  I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for 
some people, but if you're in a situation where the biggest issue 
keeping you from using Subversion is the fact that you have to run a 
server, you likely have bigger issues you should be dealing with.

-garrett


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org