On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:41:34 -0400 Michael Jennings <email@example.com> wrote: > Exactly. Have you met anyone who uses SVN without Apache? Neither > have I. I'm using SVN without Apache. Your anti-SVN message is starting to sound like it's coming from someone that hasn't actually run a SVN server recently. It's like the "E is bloated and slow" I still get very now and then, "sure E14 was, recent versions are anything but". > FUD. You can tag CVS without having a checkout. (Try cvs -H rtag.) > And SVN doesn't even HAVE tagging. It has copying, which contrary to > popular (SVN developer) belief, is NOT the same thing. A (non-branch) > tag is a symbolic name assigned to a particular state of the > repository (i.e., a changeset). It is not a copy. Tagging and branching, when was the last time either occurred to E? > But again, this is all moot. I'm sure there are numerous people who > would love to argue with me till doomsday about how great and > wonderful Subversion is; many others have already tried. It does > absolutely NOTHING to address the question at hand: Is anonymous SVN > easier on the server than anonymous cvs? I'm beginning to think that no one has any recent relevant experience to answer that question.
Description: PGP signature