Not to be a wet blanket, but didn't this conversation come up last year some time? I have to admit, as I'm relatively new to the business, I started with SVN and then started using CVS for Castor. I like SVN a lot, but I'm not sure it would be a transparent transition for some operations... For example, this afternoon when I needed to find what release a file changed in, CVS tags do this very well -- I have to admit I was surprised -- while SVN tags are a little harder because the history at a later date doesn't show the creation of the tag unless you are specifically looking at the tag... So you end up comparing revision numbers.
I don't want to hold up a transition, but I'd like the transition to be based on good development reasons rather than bandwagon. Stephen On 3/11/06, Emir Causevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I fully agree with Bruce. > I've been using svn on a project for a year, and I like it much more and > consider it much better than the CVS. Before that I've been working with > ClearCase (few years), some short projects with Visual Source Safe, and > although I like these systems because of their 'real' checkouts, this > approach is not good for 'community development' like castor and they are > not free, of course. > I've been using CVS only with castor, and I really see svn much more > suitable for this kind of projects than CVS. The reasons are clearly stated > by Bruce (http, offline diffs, much faster, etc.), they are all very true, I > would like to add that for Windows users there is this TortoiseSVN shell > extension which is really great piece of software. > > +vote for svn :) > > Regards, > Emir > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Snyder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:21 PM > > To: dev@castor.codehaus.org > > Subject: [castor-dev] Migration from CVS -> Subversion > > > > I'd like to convert the CVS repository to Subversion for many > > reasons, starting with the fact that Subversion handles > > branching and tagging as copies. This is far easier to deal > > with especially in terms of merging changes. Subversion > > brings many, many benefits beyond CVS > > including: > > > > - atomic commits > > - versioned folders > > - versioned file/directory metadata > > - when a file/directory is moved, history is not lost > > - offline diffs > > - much faster over the wire becuase less info is transmitted > > - no special handling required for binary files > > - use HTTP which can traverse firewalls > > > > Subversion has so many improvements beyond CVS and that I > > simply can't list them all. The good thing is that all the > > commands in Subversion match those of CVS. Also, converting > > the CVS repository to Subversion will preserve all history so > > nothing will be lost. I'd like to start on this very soon, so > > let's get the discussion on this topic moving. > > > > Bruce > > -- > > perl -e 'print > > unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > > );' > > > > Apache Geronimo (http://geronimo.apache.org/) > > > > Castor (http://castor.org/) > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an > > empty message to the following address: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > send an empty message to the following address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------- > >
