I installed Subversion, along with Apache 2.0.49 (needed for browser access to the repo) and TortoiseSVN, on my XP Box. Turns out it was all very easy. You can create repositories wherever you want, import your code, then check it out to your working folder with ease. As advertised, subversion is a modern, easier-to-deal-with CVS. I'll be installing the subversion server on Linux sometime this coming week. All I know is, if it's easier than setting up a cvs pserver (which is a mild pain-in-the-ass), I'll be sold.
I tried messing around with subversion a couple of years ago, but the software was too young and I didn't feel like dealing with the bugs and asspain Linux install. I'm sure it's very straight forward these days.
I imported all my current web dev code, ch-checked it out, made a bunch of revisions, czech-ins, updates, ch-check-outs, etc. Not one problem encountered. Made me a snappy camper.
The browser interface to subversion is basically just a jacked apache file view. It pretty much sucks. I looked around and found an article showing how to hack viewcvs to work with subversion, but it described lots of 'do this, and then do this, and then this, and oh yeah, this too, oh and don't forget to install all this other junk', which raised by laziness hackles. I'm sure it's pretty easy, but I'll save that for another day. Besides, subversion is engineered to work best with DAV, command line, or Tortoise. I may just forgo the whole viewcvs business (unless I really miss all the information supplied by viewcvs/cvsweb...which, realistically, I will) --- I'll post about it whenever I finish.
Meanwhile, I have php5 and php 4.x for windows, plus Mysql. I'd really like to get Apache 2, PHP5, and MySQL all running on XP, then mirror the same setup on my Linux servers. I tend to enjoy coding locally, and then just deploying to the Linux servers. No specific reason, I just like doing it that way. I think the doctors call it "Chumpitis."
Recent Comments