Difference between revisions of "Talk:Subversion"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
It is not just i-bay names - it is folders too. If I create an SVN repo called 'test' and create a folder called 'test' in the primary i-bay html folder, then a browser pointed to http://server/test will hook up to the i-bay folder rather than the SVN web view. I'm not sure if this would be considered a bug? | It is not just i-bay names - it is folders too. If I create an SVN repo called 'test' and create a folder called 'test' in the primary i-bay html folder, then a browser pointed to http://server/test will hook up to the i-bay folder rather than the SVN web view. I'm not sure if this would be considered a bug? | ||
| + | |||
| + | It would also be nice - and probably only possible if the repos were stored in a true i-bay - to be able to point a sub-domain at the SVN repose, e.g. http://svn.mydomain.com/repo-name That would be another way to keep the namespaces apart. | ||
Revision as of 13:27, 21 October 2008
should we just call the page subversion
eg i have a hylafax page not smeserver-hylafax
Namespace clash with i-bays
--Judgej 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I think it would be useful to separate the i-bay namespace and the subversion namespace. For example, if the repositories were under http://{server-name}/svn/{repository-name} then they would not limit the i-bay names and vice-versa. There may be issues with permissions (maybe the same name cannot be used as an SVN repo and and i-bay?)
It is not just i-bay names - it is folders too. If I create an SVN repo called 'test' and create a folder called 'test' in the primary i-bay html folder, then a browser pointed to http://server/test will hook up to the i-bay folder rather than the SVN web view. I'm not sure if this would be considered a bug?
It would also be nice - and probably only possible if the repos were stored in a true i-bay - to be able to point a sub-domain at the SVN repose, e.g. http://svn.mydomain.com/repo-name That would be another way to keep the namespaces apart.
