The Old Joel on Software Forum: Part 3 (of 5)

Subversion?

Subversion version control does not work with Apache 1, only Apache 2. Apache 2 has trouble with mod_perl.
Why are we using Subversion for our CMS for web pages? This project was handed over to me after all those headache-generating decisions were made. I'm just wondering if they had any good reasons (and no, I am not going to ask them).

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

His pointless message inspired me to try out Subversion, after lots of people I know recommended it.

It's not bad! Now to see if IntelliJ has a Subversion module of some kind. I wouldn't want to lose their great CVS integration.

Fleeno
Thursday, November 13, 2003

I didn't say Subversion is bad. I said it requires Apache 2,which has problems with mod_perl. I would rather not use something so new you have to wait for other software to catch up with it.

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Apache 2 is hardly new.

mod_perl is open source. Get hacking, you lazy OSS user. :-p

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Thursday, November 13, 2003

It's all in the subversion FAQ...

"If you want to host a networked repository, then you either need to set up Apache2 or use our standalone server process over ssh."

So just use their standalone server. If you don't want to do that, use Apache 1.x as your main server and @.x for subversion:

"Don't worry, you can run Apache 2.0 on a different port, while continuing to run Apache 1.x on port 80. Different versions of Apache can happily coexist on the same machine. "

FAQ's are a wonderful thing...

RocketJeff
Thursday, November 13, 2003

We need Subversion and mod_perl both running in Apache2. All of those problems were solved already by someone else. I just wondered if it was worth it. I thought CVS was good enough, considering this is just a CMS for web pages, with only 2 users.
I don't know why this question brought out so much hostility. I thought I would talk about software since I found out other subjects aren't allowed. I have already started to wonder why I wanted to talk about anything here. If I need a break from coding I'm sure there are more interesting forums to visit.

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

I can think of at least one reason why CVS might have been deemed inferior, that relates specifically to website management:

CVS doesn't handle file renames/moves gracefully in revisions.

If your project requires that people be allowed to rename stuff or move it, accomplishing it in CVS would've been hard, and something like Arch or Subversion would be needed.

Personally, I'd have been inclined to go with Arch, of the solutions out there, because it has the least overhead in terms of servers and whatnot to set up. Arch has also been around a bit longer than Subversion, I believe.

OTOH, I'm not sure that Arch has a good web interface available, whereas one of the better web UI's for revision control (ViewCVS) can be made to work with Subversion. So, if your project also required a direct web interface for the revision control system itself, then Subversion might fit the bill.

So, without more knowledge of your project's requirements, it's hard to say for sure, but there are definitely some potentially legitimate arguments. Of course, there are also arguments for doing pilot tests of software that a team isn't familiar with, before committing to using it!

Phillip J. Eby
Thursday, November 13, 2003

The question probably bought out some hostility because of the way you phrased it.

You asked "Why are we using Subversion for our CMS for web pages?" and then stated that you weren't going to ask the people who made the decision. So if you're not going to ask the people in the company, how can you expect us outsiders to know the reason?

John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Yes I think there should have been pilot tests. When I took over the CMS it had been developed for almost a year, and I was told to try out JBoss Nukes, to see if that might be better.
However, this is R&D and we don't have to meet deadlines or make a profit. The decision to use Subversion might have been an excellent decision, for all I know. I brought it up here to get other opinions, since my own understanding is limited. I don't spend every waking minute reading about software.

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

[So if you're not going to ask the people in the company, how can you expect us outsiders to know the reason?]

I will only ask them if it comes up somehow. Just blurting it out looks like I'm questioning whether the decision was rational.
I was really just trying to start a conversation on the pros and cons of Subversion, so I could understand it better.

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

And by the way, this has nothing to do with having a "pair" or not. I just don't see any reason to go out of my way to offend people I work with or for.

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Why should asking colleagues why a particular technical decision was taken offend them? Do you feel unable to ask the question in a non-confrontational way? I don't see what the problem is.

John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
Thursday, November 13, 2003

I want to make Subversion do things it was clearly not designed for.

Why?

Because I really want to subvert subversion.

Flamebait Sr.
Thursday, November 13, 2003

So run them both (on different ports).

Have an instance of apache2 just for Subversion and keep apache1 for all your Perl stuff.

Not so hard, really...

Andrew Reid
Thursday, November 13, 2003

I'm guessing they went with Subversion just to confuse you. Look at the name, for crying out loud!

On a more serious note, you're asking us to be mind-readers here. There are a billion and one reasons they might have chosen Subversion, some of them valid and some of them random (maybe they just heard good things about Subversion and wanted to try it)..How should we know?

Also I agree with some of the above posters -- if the people who made the decision are available, just ask them!

As long as you don't phrase the question in a negative manner, why should they be offended if you're just asking for more information on why a decision was made?

Mister Fancypants
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Subversion advertises itself as a "compelling replacement for CVS" when in fact it is a slow, oft-broken, incomplete CVS with multiple unstable dependencies. Been there.

Robert
Thursday, November 13, 2003

[Have an instance of apache2 just for Subversion and keep apache1 for
all your Perl stuff.

Not so hard, really...]

The mod_perl web application is an interface for Subversion. It isn't so hard if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

[should they be offended if you're just asking for more information on why a decision was made?]

I guess I have too much insight into human nature to do that. If the person is confident he made a good decision and can explain it easily, there is no harm in asking. But I don't know ahead of time if that's true. Maybe he thinks it was not the best possible decision and can't rationalize it. Then he would feel embarrassed by my question. Why should I care? Well, why make someone feel bad just because I'm curious?
Maybe it was the boss's decision, or maybe it was the programmer's. I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. I'm just curious, and that is not a good enough reason to risk causing a tense moment. If it mattered, then it would be worth trampling on someone's ego, but it doesn't and it isn't.
No one here knows me so I can wonder aloud about it here. Or so I thought.

The Real PC
Thursday, November 13, 2003

well thats true, god forbid you should cause a tense moment.

FullNameRequired
Thursday, November 13, 2003

If you're reluctance is met by some frustration caused by having to use this particular combination and you really want to vent then go ahead.

As in:

Which incompetent jerk decided to use one piece of incompatible shit with another piece and expected it to work?

Or similar.

Then go ahead. If someone feels emotionally wedded to that decision then let them defend it. Chances are though, if it is a problem, they'll agree with you and with a heavy sigh say something like 'Well it seemed like a good idea at the time, if you want to change it go ahead'.

Simon Lucy
Friday, November 14, 2003

I don't want to change it because it took the first guy almost a year to develop it. I took it over and made some changes, and we have to start using it pretty soon. I guess mod_perl will catch up with Apache 2 one day. Meanwhile the first developer added everything necessary to handle post requests, etc.
The reason I asked about it here was the odd chance that someone who really knows something about Subversion, mod_perl, Apache 2, etc., would have a comment. However I know that most of you here are not all that familiar with open source and Unix and the kind of things I work with. So I wasn't surprised at getting some nasty remarks and not much of anything helpful.

The Real PC
Friday, November 14, 2003

The replies wouldn't have been any different if you asked why someone used Access in a place where SQL Server seemed like a better idea.

In both cases, we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing why the decision was made, the potential reasons are infinite, some of them practical and some of them just bad decisions.

If you really want to know, ask the guy who made the decision. If you can't do that without causing a a problem, you suck at communication.

Mister Fancypants
Friday, November 14, 2003