Re: Subversion enabled in SF

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 04:11:39PM -0800, Robin Rowe wrote:
> Teoh,
> 
> I hoped SVN would co-exist with CVS auto-magically. If it's going to 
> break CVS or be cumbersome we probably can't use it.

I don't think it would be automatic, but I don't think it'd break
anything either. They are two independent systems. But the problem is
that then you'd have to update the code in two places to keep them in
sync.


> Can you research what SF recommends?
[...]

I don't think SF recommends one system over the other. From personal
experience, though, I tend to prefer SVN---it was originally designed to
address some of the nagging limitations of CVS, and has improvements in
key areas such as atomic commits, directory versioning and O(1)
branch/tag creation. It was also designed with CVS users in mind, so the
command-line syntax, etc., resemble CVS. However, it does differ from
CVS in some places (e.g. the concept of using copying to achieve
branching/tagging, a universal revision number, etc.), so some people
may still prefer CVS because it's is more familiar.


--T

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace