Re: Subversion
David Summers <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.tmda.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
> Should we use this instead of CVS? Sourceforge now offers projects
> Subversion as well.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/docs/E09
>
> Not that familiar with Subversion yet, but it seems like it might be better.
YES!
With CVS you can't rename files, keeping history!
With CVS you are stuck with ever accumulating empty directories that
take more and more time to run through while updating!
With CVS to be able to merge later, you have to tag the root of
the branch and then remember each subsequent tag so you don't accidentally
try to merge stuff you've already merged.
With CVS when you commit, tag, or branch, you have to wait for it to
duplicate the same commit/tag/branch log message and info into every file
in the repository.
Subversion keeps the same great data model that CVS promoted
(Copy-Modify-Merge) so CVS users fill right at home once they get past the
"universal revision per commit" issues.
With Subversion, a tag/branch takes mere seconds as it is a lazy copy.
Subversion is not perfect or a panacea but it is "a compelling replacement
for CVS".
Pretty easy to convert from cvs2svn with the python command script of that
name.
When I converted from CVS to Subversion my repository went from 14+ GB
down to 6.6 GB.
Subversion is multi-platform (Unix/Linux, MAC OS X, Windows, Novell,
OS/400) and has some good GUIs as well as the standard command-line
interface.
http://subversion.tigris.org
http://svnbook.red-bean.com
- David Summers
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
[email protected] PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint = 0B44 B118 85CC F4EC 7021 1ED4 1516 5B78 E320 2001