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

[Phillip J. Eby]

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.