You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Kyle <ky...@gmail.com> on 2004/12/29 15:06:09 UTC
SVN best practice for content authors
All,
My company is evaluating chucking SourceSafe in favor of SVN. We have
been using SVN as a pilot for several months for our .NET projects and
have had a great experience with it, absolutely no issues. (running
the 1.1.x series + TortoiseSVN & Ankh) -- branching/merging are
*wonderful* esp. when coming from SourceSafe.
The unique challenge in chucking SourceSafe is that we have a team of
content developers (HTML, graphics, etc.) who are using
Interdev/SourceSafe to develop content. They can hit "Save" in their
editor, then "Refresh" in their browser and their changes are
immediately visible. They do not need any parts of the advanced
source control (branching, merging, etc.) -- just a stable way to keep
a history.
Some factors:
- Interdev is only used as a text editor with integrated scm (SS), so
it is not necessary once SS goes away
- They need to maintain their Save/Refresh development style
- There content development team is small
- They cannot develop locally on their boxes because we do some
dynamic content processing that requires the content be served from a
web server
My current thinking is to use a shared working copy. IE, they work on
a working copy that is also the copy the web is served from. This
gives them Save/Refresh, plus the ability to have basic source
control. I have tested this out with a few devs here, and it works.
I know that a shared working copy is less than ideal, but remember,
this is a unique scenario -- their basic need is to edit & rapidly
test changes AND have some sort of basic source control. It is rare
for two devs to be working in the same directory/area, so collisions
would be minimal.
I have searched the archives and really can't find anything related to
this. Does anyone have any experience or insights on this?
Thanks,
Kyle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN best practice for content authors
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Apr 29, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Kyle Kline wrote:
> South River Technologies was very prompt in getting back to me, and
> provided me with a beta version of their next release. This version
> apparently has a reworked WebDAV component, and as such, everything
> now works fully with SVN 1.2rc2 / Apache (renames, lock/unlock, etc.)
>
> I swear I don't work for them :) but if you are looking for a good
> Windows WebDAV client (better than the limited Windows WebFolders),
> WebDrive is great -- it creates a virtual drive that *any* Windows/DOS
> program can save to. It makes a great compliment to an
> Apache/SVN/Autoversioning server.
This is great news! I know that webdrive has always worked really well
against plain old mod_dav with an ordinary fs backend (mod_dav_fs).
But if you're saying that it works with the latest mod_dav_svn 1.2
doing autoversioning, I'm happy to hear that. I'll be sure to put that
in my Appendix C notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN best practice for content authors
Posted by Kyle Kline <ky...@gmail.com>.
South River Technologies was very prompt in getting back to me, and
provided me with a beta version of their next release. This version
apparently has a reworked WebDAV component, and as such, everything
now works fully with SVN 1.2rc2 / Apache (renames, lock/unlock, etc.)
I swear I don't work for them :) but if you are looking for a good
Windows WebDAV client (better than the limited Windows WebFolders),
WebDrive is great -- it creates a virtual drive that *any* Windows/DOS
program can save to. It makes a great compliment to an
Apache/SVN/Autoversioning server.
-Kyle
On 4/23/05, Kyle Kline <ky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Erik -- if your'e still out there --
>
> I revisited this using Apache + SVN 1.2 RC1. I found a pretty cool
> client (WebDrive:
> http://www.southrivertech.com/index.php?pg=./products/webdrive/index)
> that supports edit-in-place. This is looking very promising.
> (WebDrive is commerical but licensing looks pretty affordable.) The
> performance is great, and it would give the content authors
> transparent versioning.
>
> The only thing I can't do with WebDrive is renames. This is odd,
> since renames work fine with Win32 webfolders & Bitflex. I have
> opened a ticket with WebDrive
> (http://srthelpdesk.com/index.php?_a=tickets&_m=viewmain&emailre=kyle.kline@gmail.com&ticketkeyre=844856&_i=WZS-37841)
> since the empirical evidence would suggest it is an issue with their
> product. The log is attached to the ticket. Other than that, the
> product works great. It creates a virtual drive that *any*
> Windows/DOS program can use as a 'norma' file system.
>
> Does anyone have experience with using WebDrive + SVN/Apache for
> WebDAV w/autoversioning?
>
> Also -- is anyone else using Subversion as a virtual file system for
> managing web content with a high rate of change (ie tons and tons of
> commits through DAV)?
>
> Thanks!!!
> Kyle
>
>
> On 1/3/05, Kyle <ky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Have you considered mounting your subversion repository as a webdav
> > > share? You can enable writing to it using the mod_dav_svn
> > > Autoversioning functionality.
> >
> > Erik -- thank you for the response! This is an interesting idea.
> >
> > The only thing that concerns me is the writeup in the manual on this
> > -- http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/apcs03.html -- copy/edit/recopy
> > would probably be a hindrance to productivity since all our devs are
> > using Win2K & WinXP clients.
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:00:21 +0100, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:06:09 -0500, Kyle <ky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > My company is evaluating chucking SourceSafe in favor of SVN. We have
> > > > been using SVN as a pilot for several months for our .NET projects and
> > > > have had a great experience with it, absolutely no issues. (running
> > > > the 1.1.x series + TortoiseSVN & Ankh) -- branching/merging are
> > > > *wonderful* esp. when coming from SourceSafe.
> > > >
> > > > The unique challenge in chucking SourceSafe is that we have a team of
> > > > content developers (HTML, graphics, etc.) who are using
> > > > Interdev/SourceSafe to develop content. They can hit "Save" in their
> > > > editor, then "Refresh" in their browser and their changes are
> > > > immediately visible. They do not need any parts of the advanced
> > > > source control (branching, merging, etc.) -- just a stable way to keep
> > > > a history.
> > >
> > > Have you considered mounting your subversion repository as a webdav
> > > share? You can enable writing to it using the mod_dav_svn
> > > Autoversioning functionality.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > Erik.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Some factors:
> > > > - Interdev is only used as a text editor with integrated scm (SS), so
> > > > it is not necessary once SS goes away
> > > > - They need to maintain their Save/Refresh development style
> > > > - There content development team is small
> > > > - They cannot develop locally on their boxes because we do some
> > > > dynamic content processing that requires the content be served from a
> > > > web server
> > > >
> > > > My current thinking is to use a shared working copy. IE, they work on
> > > > a working copy that is also the copy the web is served from. This
> > > > gives them Save/Refresh, plus the ability to have basic source
> > > > control. I have tested this out with a few devs here, and it works.
> > > > I know that a shared working copy is less than ideal, but remember,
> > > > this is a unique scenario -- their basic need is to edit & rapidly
> > > > test changes AND have some sort of basic source control. It is rare
> > > > for two devs to be working in the same directory/area, so collisions
> > > > would be minimal.
> > > >
> > > > I have searched the archives and really can't find anything related to
> > > > this. Does anyone have any experience or insights on this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Kyle
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN best practice for content authors
Posted by Kyle Kline <ky...@gmail.com>.
Erik -- if your'e still out there --
I revisited this using Apache + SVN 1.2 RC1. I found a pretty cool
client (WebDrive:
http://www.southrivertech.com/index.php?pg=./products/webdrive/index)
that supports edit-in-place. This is looking very promising.
(WebDrive is commerical but licensing looks pretty affordable.) The
performance is great, and it would give the content authors
transparent versioning.
The only thing I can't do with WebDrive is renames. This is odd,
since renames work fine with Win32 webfolders & Bitflex. I have
opened a ticket with WebDrive
(http://srthelpdesk.com/index.php?_a=tickets&_m=viewmain&emailre=kyle.kline@gmail.com&ticketkeyre=844856&_i=WZS-37841)
since the empirical evidence would suggest it is an issue with their
product. The log is attached to the ticket. Other than that, the
product works great. It creates a virtual drive that *any*
Windows/DOS program can use as a 'norma' file system.
Does anyone have experience with using WebDrive + SVN/Apache for
WebDAV w/autoversioning?
Also -- is anyone else using Subversion as a virtual file system for
managing web content with a high rate of change (ie tons and tons of
commits through DAV)?
Thanks!!!
Kyle
On 1/3/05, Kyle <ky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Have you considered mounting your subversion repository as a webdav
> > share? You can enable writing to it using the mod_dav_svn
> > Autoversioning functionality.
>
> Erik -- thank you for the response! This is an interesting idea.
>
> The only thing that concerns me is the writeup in the manual on this
> -- http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/apcs03.html -- copy/edit/recopy
> would probably be a hindrance to productivity since all our devs are
> using Win2K & WinXP clients.
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:00:21 +0100, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:06:09 -0500, Kyle <ky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > My company is evaluating chucking SourceSafe in favor of SVN. We have
> > > been using SVN as a pilot for several months for our .NET projects and
> > > have had a great experience with it, absolutely no issues. (running
> > > the 1.1.x series + TortoiseSVN & Ankh) -- branching/merging are
> > > *wonderful* esp. when coming from SourceSafe.
> > >
> > > The unique challenge in chucking SourceSafe is that we have a team of
> > > content developers (HTML, graphics, etc.) who are using
> > > Interdev/SourceSafe to develop content. They can hit "Save" in their
> > > editor, then "Refresh" in their browser and their changes are
> > > immediately visible. They do not need any parts of the advanced
> > > source control (branching, merging, etc.) -- just a stable way to keep
> > > a history.
> >
> > Have you considered mounting your subversion repository as a webdav
> > share? You can enable writing to it using the mod_dav_svn
> > Autoversioning functionality.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> > >
> > > Some factors:
> > > - Interdev is only used as a text editor with integrated scm (SS), so
> > > it is not necessary once SS goes away
> > > - They need to maintain their Save/Refresh development style
> > > - There content development team is small
> > > - They cannot develop locally on their boxes because we do some
> > > dynamic content processing that requires the content be served from a
> > > web server
> > >
> > > My current thinking is to use a shared working copy. IE, they work on
> > > a working copy that is also the copy the web is served from. This
> > > gives them Save/Refresh, plus the ability to have basic source
> > > control. I have tested this out with a few devs here, and it works.
> > > I know that a shared working copy is less than ideal, but remember,
> > > this is a unique scenario -- their basic need is to edit & rapidly
> > > test changes AND have some sort of basic source control. It is rare
> > > for two devs to be working in the same directory/area, so collisions
> > > would be minimal.
> > >
> > > I have searched the archives and really can't find anything related to
> > > this. Does anyone have any experience or insights on this?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kyle
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN best practice for content authors
Posted by Kyle <ky...@gmail.com>.
> Have you considered mounting your subversion repository as a webdav
> share? You can enable writing to it using the mod_dav_svn
> Autoversioning functionality.
Erik -- thank you for the response! This is an interesting idea.
The only thing that concerns me is the writeup in the manual on this
-- http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/apcs03.html -- copy/edit/recopy
would probably be a hindrance to productivity since all our devs are
using Win2K & WinXP clients.
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:00:21 +0100, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:06:09 -0500, Kyle <ky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > My company is evaluating chucking SourceSafe in favor of SVN. We have
> > been using SVN as a pilot for several months for our .NET projects and
> > have had a great experience with it, absolutely no issues. (running
> > the 1.1.x series + TortoiseSVN & Ankh) -- branching/merging are
> > *wonderful* esp. when coming from SourceSafe.
> >
> > The unique challenge in chucking SourceSafe is that we have a team of
> > content developers (HTML, graphics, etc.) who are using
> > Interdev/SourceSafe to develop content. They can hit "Save" in their
> > editor, then "Refresh" in their browser and their changes are
> > immediately visible. They do not need any parts of the advanced
> > source control (branching, merging, etc.) -- just a stable way to keep
> > a history.
>
> Have you considered mounting your subversion repository as a webdav
> share? You can enable writing to it using the mod_dav_svn
> Autoversioning functionality.
>
> HTH,
>
> Erik.
>
> >
> > Some factors:
> > - Interdev is only used as a text editor with integrated scm (SS), so
> > it is not necessary once SS goes away
> > - They need to maintain their Save/Refresh development style
> > - There content development team is small
> > - They cannot develop locally on their boxes because we do some
> > dynamic content processing that requires the content be served from a
> > web server
> >
> > My current thinking is to use a shared working copy. IE, they work on
> > a working copy that is also the copy the web is served from. This
> > gives them Save/Refresh, plus the ability to have basic source
> > control. I have tested this out with a few devs here, and it works.
> > I know that a shared working copy is less than ideal, but remember,
> > this is a unique scenario -- their basic need is to edit & rapidly
> > test changes AND have some sort of basic source control. It is rare
> > for two devs to be working in the same directory/area, so collisions
> > would be minimal.
> >
> > I have searched the archives and really can't find anything related to
> > this. Does anyone have any experience or insights on this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kyle
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN best practice for content authors
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:06:09 -0500, Kyle <ky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> My company is evaluating chucking SourceSafe in favor of SVN. We have
> been using SVN as a pilot for several months for our .NET projects and
> have had a great experience with it, absolutely no issues. (running
> the 1.1.x series + TortoiseSVN & Ankh) -- branching/merging are
> *wonderful* esp. when coming from SourceSafe.
>
> The unique challenge in chucking SourceSafe is that we have a team of
> content developers (HTML, graphics, etc.) who are using
> Interdev/SourceSafe to develop content. They can hit "Save" in their
> editor, then "Refresh" in their browser and their changes are
> immediately visible. They do not need any parts of the advanced
> source control (branching, merging, etc.) -- just a stable way to keep
> a history.
Have you considered mounting your subversion repository as a webdav
share? You can enable writing to it using the mod_dav_svn
Autoversioning functionality.
HTH,
Erik.
>
> Some factors:
> - Interdev is only used as a text editor with integrated scm (SS), so
> it is not necessary once SS goes away
> - They need to maintain their Save/Refresh development style
> - There content development team is small
> - They cannot develop locally on their boxes because we do some
> dynamic content processing that requires the content be served from a
> web server
>
> My current thinking is to use a shared working copy. IE, they work on
> a working copy that is also the copy the web is served from. This
> gives them Save/Refresh, plus the ability to have basic source
> control. I have tested this out with a few devs here, and it works.
> I know that a shared working copy is less than ideal, but remember,
> this is a unique scenario -- their basic need is to edit & rapidly
> test changes AND have some sort of basic source control. It is rare
> for two devs to be working in the same directory/area, so collisions
> would be minimal.
>
> I have searched the archives and really can't find anything related to
> this. Does anyone have any experience or insights on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org