so the bottom line is we have to migrate off CVS to subversion. I'm pretty busy these days, but I'll try to make time to play with subversion in the next few weeks. my hesitation is primarily due to lack of experience and familiarity with subversion.
I'm just stuck in the mud of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" :) peter On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:07:42 -0500, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I probably need to provide a bit more context :) > > The Infrastructure guys are looking to get us off CVS by some point. I > wouldn't be surprised if the ASF is 50% in SVN already. So trying to > avoid SVN is probably going to be increasingly hard as this year > progresses. > > The existing CVS repository would be migrated, with > tags/branches/comments all intact. Generally SVN on the client side is > exactly the same as CVS. Most of the commands are the same. The only > major difference is in tagging/branching; where the 'svn copy' command > is used. In SVN you don't usually tag/branch individual files, you > tag/branch the directory. > > Client-side support is good now. OS X binaries exist; the Eclipse > plugin works fine (though maybe not for tagging/branching; ymmv). > Intellij has a plugin and the next version will come with SVN plugged > in automatically. > > Most importantly, there are a lot of improvements over CVS. > http://subversion.tigris.org/ contains a description that is probably > better than my particular favourites. > > I'm happy to assist with the migration planning etc, though if there's > someone familiar with svn here already I'd prefer to let them handle > things. All that really means is organising thoughts on how to > structure the svn side of things (more on that later), sending the > request to the infra guys for a test version to look at and then > deciding if the test was good. > > Hen > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
