> has anybody used anything other than cvs or subversion? to me, > subversions is to cvs what c++ is to c, which is to say, I am not so > impressed. sure it's probbably better in many ways, but not as seemless > as I would like it. what I'd really like to see is version control as a > feature of the filesystem. also, for code, it would be ideal if diff's > could be represented in a more abstract semantic form, rather than just > straight text diffs. > > Dave
I must say that I'm quite happy with subversion. I'm running a 3.5 gig subversion repository, and because of svn's transactional backend (db4) I replicate to 2 other offsite servers with great ease. No many hours long rsync commands, just send a .gz of the contents of the previous transaction and apply it on the replicants. Subversion feels like a filesystem, and all actions are transactions and gracefully rollback if there are problems. There are only a couple limitations (symlinks come to mind), but it's just a matter of time before they are implemented. I LOVE the constant time, instantaneous branch (tag) operations. Tt gracefully handles binary files and uses a binary differencing algorithm as well rather than just storing whole copies. Another thing I love is the flexibility it offers, I'm currently using x.509 certificates against an apache2 server with client certificate verification, but you can tunnel with ssh or run svn's native tcp client/server setup or just use the file:// method as well. I have not lost any data, and as of version 0.35.0 or so, it's now considered beta quality. I was actually wondering how many people in the CLUG use version control, or who would be interested in a svn vs. cvs, or maybe a general revision control presentation sometime? -- Brent Graveland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
