You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@gmail.com> on 2012/04/20 13:06:08 UTC
Is serf worth backporting to RHEL 5 and 6 for Subversion
I note that there is no libserf or serf RPM published, anywhere, for RHEL,
and it's not yet enabled for Fedora. That makes the serf libraries a bit
more awkward to integrate for testing. How much benefit is there in using
serf rether than neon for subversion-1.7.x? I'm developing a sneaking
suspicion that if anyone's going to bundle it for RHEL use, it's going to
be me, and I don't know if it's worth the effort.
Re: Is serf worth backporting to RHEL 5 and 6 for Subversion
Posted by Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:06:08AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > I note that there is no libserf or serf RPM published, anywhere, for
> RHEL,
> > and it's not yet enabled for Fedora. That makes the serf libraries a bit
> > more awkward to integrate for testing. How much benefit is there in using
> > serf rether than neon for subversion-1.7.x? I'm developing a sneaking
> > suspicion that if anyone's going to bundle it for RHEL use, it's going to
> > be me, and I don't know if it's worth the effort.
>
> For now, don't bother with serf on RHEL. Just use neon.
> There are currently no considerable benefits. Rather, there are still
> issues with serf that neon does not suffer (which is why serf isn't
> the default yet).
>
> In some future release, using serf will result in more efficient checkouts
> and updates, e.g. by avoiding repeated download of content already present
> in .svn/pristine/
>
Cool, thanks. Dealing with the "compile and use neon locally" requirements
for RHEL 4 in some recent work were.... awkward, but backporting serf for
multiple RHEL releases would be burdensome if there's not a very real
benefit.
Re: Is serf worth backporting to RHEL 5 and 6 for Subversion
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 07:06:08AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I note that there is no libserf or serf RPM published, anywhere, for RHEL,
> and it's not yet enabled for Fedora. That makes the serf libraries a bit
> more awkward to integrate for testing. How much benefit is there in using
> serf rether than neon for subversion-1.7.x? I'm developing a sneaking
> suspicion that if anyone's going to bundle it for RHEL use, it's going to
> be me, and I don't know if it's worth the effort.
For now, don't bother with serf on RHEL. Just use neon.
There are currently no considerable benefits. Rather, there are still
issues with serf that neon does not suffer (which is why serf isn't
the default yet).
In some future release, using serf will result in more efficient checkouts
and updates, e.g. by avoiding repeated download of content already present
in .svn/pristine/