[svk-users] Is svk a real production option?

[David Morton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Feb 1, 2008, at 4:49 AM, Marijn Vriens wrote:

> My experience tells me that people and managers like the centralized  
> one-place-has-the-final-truth SVN mode

This has been my experience with svk - we have a central SVN repo that  
is the "final-truth".  SVK is just a nice way to mirror it locally and  
make incremental changes locally before uploading back to main repo.   
As such, the main responsibility falls on SVN, not SVK.

As far as developer branches - you can make them either locally with  
SVK if your the only developer, or create a branch on the main repo  
and miror that.   Share and merge often - svn push has been pretty  
good to me.

I actually had a strange issue earlier with a few files that said they  
were changed ... but one nice thing abut SVK is the lack of secret  
files all over the place - the source tree is exactly the same as the  
final result.  I exported a clean SVN copy, ran a diff off my broken  
SVK checkout, and then detached and re-checked out my local copy, and  
then patched my changes back in.   There's hardly any way to lose data.

And of course for the really strange events, there's always the daily  
incremental backups that you are planning to keep in order to restore  
a good copy right?

(That's another soapbox - always have fully automated and tested  
backups; it can save you from almost anything)

David Morton
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com
mortonda at dgrmm.net



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHoz8WUy30ODPkzl0RArirAKC1e6Vn3nnVhXjE+tOdG3U2QSzXvACfQ8OB
zj9kfcyhrXeRCBeivPFIma0=
=ErsJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----