Damien wrote:
I don't think Tim was referring to the repository storage method (bdb or fsfs) but rather the way in which users check in code.
For the record, that was indeed what I meant. At work we use Linux with a shared NFS file system. Anyone can then use SVN to create a repository anywhere in the file system and administer it themselves. This is what I call "file mode". You check in and check out just using the svn program. In this mode the only way I see to control access is with file permissions. (This is discussed in the SVN docs but is confusing). Both our CVS repositories (fractint.org and fractint.net) work this way, using group write permission. There is a separate program (that I have no experience with) that sets up a SVN server that is centrally administered, and assumes network access. It is this distinction that I was discussing. The fractint.net host appears to offer a means of setting up the client- server system. However, if we are using tortoise to access subversion, then I believe we don't need the server.
The storage mechanism used is largely a matter of personal taste. In my opinion, the fsfs storage is just fine; there's less (zero) possibility of the repository becoming "wedged", and you can always get a consistent repository snapshot without extra processes, which is great for backups. A run-down of the differences can be found here:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposadmin.planning.html#svn.repo sadmin.basics.backends
At work we use the fsfs system and it works great. In studying the documentation I couldn't see any advantage to bdb. Tim