Re: subversion vs cvs

After a long battle with technology, scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier"), an earthling, wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
>
>> Which brings me to another question .. has anybody considered using
>> subversion instead of CVS ?
>
> Why?  not that I'm for a chance from something that isn't broken, but what
> advantages does subversion give us over what we already have?

It's a newer design, offering some nice features:

- Directories, renames, and file meta-data are versioned.
- Commits are truly atomic.  (DB guys should like that :-).)
- Branching and tagging are cheap (constant time) operations
- Costs are proportional to change size, not data size
- Efficient handling of binary files
- Parseable output (one of the things better about SCCS than RCS/CVS)

Unfortunately, they have only just gotten to the point of having a
"stable" version.  Until very recently, different versions of
Subversion couldn't expect to talk to one another, which is a Very Bad
Thing.

In another year, it might be worth holding a debate over whether there
is value to considering Subversion or one of the Arch descendants as
an alternative to CVS.  I wouldn't think it's time yet.  And it would
be as wise to consider Arch as well; it has some pretty interesting
"repository" features...
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
"Those who doubt the importance  of  a convenient notation should  try
writing a LISP interpreter in COBOL  or doing long division with Roman
numerals." -- Hal Fulton