| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Subversion: Is the jump from CVS worth it? NOT YETSubversion: Is the jump from CVS worth it? NOT YETPosted Mar 18, 2004 21:22 UTC (Thu) by jeremiah (subscriber, #1221)Parent article: Subversion: Is the jump from CVS worth it? I don't quite think it's time to switch over just yet. The argument about apache not being a requirement is bogus. At least if you want it to be used with eclipse. Subclipse only supports the http protocol. If I wasn't running a web server on my repository server already, I'd run apache with no problem, but as it is I can't. So no eclipse. The authentication mecanics seems a little screwy as well, ie they are the same as cvs but without the passwords being stored in an encrypted fashion. svnserve really seems like an after thought. I do like the conversion from cvs though. I'll give it a try when when the support tools are better developed.
(Log in to post comments)
Subversion: Is the jump from CVS worth it? NOT YET Posted Mar 25, 2004 10:18 UTC (Thu) by klaasjan (guest, #5492) [Link] I just tried out the latest Subclipse version (for the Eclipse 3.0 milestone builds) which worked nicely with svnserve on the server.You don't have to run apache2 on port 80; if you read the documentation it's recommended running apache2 on a different port if you just want to use it to host a subversion repository. The authentication of svnserve is limited, but with Apache2 you can use every apache authentication module available.
|
|
||||||||||||