[wp-hackers] SVN: /branches/stable/

[Brian Layman]

Doug wrote:
>AFAIK, SVN does NOT store the individual source files (nor their
>sequential diffs) as actual files on the filesystem ala CVS; rather, it
>uses a Berkeley DB backend or binary files on-disk to encapsulate the
>repo data.  This has been one of the reasons we haven't seen massive
>adoption of SVN internally - there's a fear that, if something goes
>wrong, there's no way to even attempt to rescue a few of the most
>important files in the same way that CVS, RCS or even SCCS 
>(*shudder*) do.
>
>Engineers are a skittish lot and really prefer that you not lose their
>hard work, thankyouverymuch.  *grin*

I agree with that sentiment! However I don't understand the concern about
the Berkeley DB backend.  Is there an inherent stability issue with BDB?  Or
are you people just concerned about the info being in a DB rather than a
file system?  StarTeam, the versioning system with which I'm most familiar,
stores your versioning info in a MS SQL* db.  That just means that your
backup procedure has to include the database.  There are plenty of mission
critical operations that depend on MS SQL DB data never being lost.  So,
after implementing our procedures (RAID (grin), Backups and etc), we feel
quite safe and haven't lost any code since the switch over to MySQL.


*You could also use other backends like MS Access if you REALLY want to
stress that backup system... When our StarTeam system was setup in the mid
90s we used MS Access and definitely had corruptions over the years...  But
then again, that's one thing large Access DBs are known for...

_______________________________________________
Brian Layman
www.TheCodeCave.com