[Chandler-dev] Using svn instead of builds for tarballs?

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Nov 10 09:43:47 PST 2006


At 11:01 PM 11/9/2006 -0800, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
>Andi Vajda wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
> > I know, I know.... the logic is incomplete though, if svn tends to be
> > unavailable more often than builds, then putting all eggs into the svn
> > basket
> > would be unwise. I sure don't know that that is the case, I was just not
> > convinced by the argument...
>
>I don't understand that logic.
>
>Currently:
>
>svn | builds | can checkout and build
>=====================================
>no  | no     | no
>no  | yes    | no
>yes | no     | no
>yes | yes    | yes
>
>All in svn:
>
>svn | builds | can checkout and build
>=====================================
>no  | no     | no
>no  | yes    | no
>yes | no     | yes
>yes | yes    | yes


While I'm not advocating *either* approach, I do want to point out that 
your tables above are misleading because they don't take uptime percentages 
into account.  If SVN and builds are up 99% of the time, for example, then 
buildability is 98.01% uptime in the first scenario, and 99% in the second.

Thus, an argument for going to SVN should probably not focus on 
reliability, but on such issues as speed, simplification, reduced server 
maintenance, etc.



More information about the chandler-dev mailing list