> so... yeah, svn is the future. if you decide to jump on now, life on the > leading edge can be a bit bumpy. personally, i wouldn't bet a large company > project on svn (though i know people who would =), but i would definitely use > it for personal and smaller projects ... especially since that'll give you > experience with the SCM of tomorrow =)
The main reason I stuck with svn after trying it was the svnadmin dump/load to text file feature. It's all well and good that svn does all this wonderful stuff, but with a < beta program, I need to feel confident that I won't loose any data. Once I found out how to keep these svnadmin dumps, I decided I could give it a try on a larger application. I've had less trouble with svn than cvs when it comes to screwing up the repository, and it's a bitch cleaning up when cvs bails out of a huge operation. My main problem has been that previous versions took BOATLOADS of memory sometimes. I started somewhere around 0.32.0, and some operations bailed out once they hit my ulimit of 1 GIG! A couple of versions later, doing the same operations can take 100mb. (when you are working with an entire src and ports tree for a bsd, 100mb doesn't seem like so much) I've had tons of experience with multi gigabyte CVS repositories, and in the last several months I've had experience with a multi gigabyte svn repository. In the end, I trust svn to do the right thing more than CVS. It might just be luck so far, but with simple and efficient replication capabilities, MD5 sums all over the place and the functional benefits, I'm happy with svn :) -- 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
