After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])