On 12/30/10 7:41 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
I can also argue with the Principle of least astonishment:
So say we've added a new svnadmin option --dont-create-svnserve-
config,
and we've made svnserve skip repositories which don't have an
svnserve.conf file within them (putting aside the still unsolved
problem
of what svnserve should do when run with a single global config
file).
Well, the next complaint would be... that should be the default since if I run svnadmin
create I don't "know" I need to use that option.
It all comes back to, imnsho, people expect to be able to use complex software
without spending even a small amount of time reading documentation and
understanding how stuff works.
If it makes you feel any better, I read the chapter on setting up the server
twice.
Is there really that much overhead in deleting the binary and insuring the correct
permissions are used on the repository folders to "keep the honest, honest?"
After all, any one with root/administrator access is able to bypass anything you've done
anyway.
My employer has a lot of intellectual property having to do with their silicon
riding on me setting up the repo correctly. We're outsourcing some of the
development to outside vendors, but the vendors don't get to see the entire
source tree. Only their own parts, plus the shared OSS stuff we're leveraging.
It rather see the devs working on 1.7 WC features like a real "branch" command,
performance, etc, rather than adding a config option that nobody will use.
Also, if you want a more "secure" version of subversion package up your own
binaries that don't include svnserve... let the svn dev's work on the stuff that we can't
do with 3 or 4 lines of a batch/command file.
BOb
Ironically, in my copious spare time, I'm a package owner (several times over)
for Fedora.
Doing my own custom builds of common packages is kind of anathema to that (the
entire point of doing a distro for the world at large is so that they don't
have to do their own).
-Philip
