[ic] Risks of websites served from Subversion or CVS checkouts

ic at 3edge.com ic at 3edge.com
Wed Aug 20 06:51:43 UTC 2008

Peter writes: 

> On 08/19/2008 08:48 PM, Jon Jensen wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Peter wrote: 
>>> I just think it's a very bad idea to allow version control to directly 
>>> update a running site.
>> Why?
> Because I've found that CVS updates don't always go smoothly.  You get 
> bad connections, corrupted files, conflicts, I've had times where I've 
> had to delete the entire repository and check it out again anew.  I 
> can't speak for SVN or other systems, though.  I just don't want to have 
> to be dealing with a problem with an update on a live site.  I think 
> it's much more prudent to run the update on the side then somehow move 
> the files over to the live site once you've verified that the update ran 
> smoothly.  For me the Makefile.PL process works well for moving the 
> files over (among other steps I take to resolve issues specified in the 
> UPGRADE file, etc).

* On your development environment : check in to CVS. 

* Automatic process syncs your CVS repository to your production environment
 (periodically so it will catch connection problems etc) 

* Checkout local, you should not have any conflicts as long as you do not 
change files manually in production, any issues should already have been 
found on the development tree ... 

That has been working well for me ...
Never had connection problems or issues, apart from situations where people 
were changing files in the production environment. 



More information about the interchange-users mailing list