6 ms·
Hehehe, I do use and administer a Subversion server, but to me the webdav choice was ugly. Standalone svn:// server for the win.
by Nicolay77 19y ago
Hehehe, I do use and administer a Subversion server, but to me the webdav choice was ugly.
Standalone svn:// server for the win.
- bayareaguy 19y agoOr svn+ssh://
- nostrademons 19y agoI always use svn+ssh. I had it under HTTPS initially (first using Apache, then Lighttpd), but it had a strong tendency to corrupt the working copy. Like daily. So I had to go in and delete .wcprops after every substantive check-in, which got really old really fast. No problems with svn+ssh; seems to work fine.
- rams 19y agoWebdav is really one of the really ugly design decisions of the Subversion project. WebDAV was initially promoted by Rational - if you closely study WebDAV, it is easy to notice similarities with Clearcase. Looks like it was a political choice that was made to appeal to the managers in the IT departments - "Oh, Firewalls are not a problem, If your browser works, then the SVN should work ... blah blah". To be fair though some of the top committers will freely confess to a dislike for WebDAV.