On Tue, January 23, 2007 10:30 am, Mark Wolfe wrote: > Ok, fight! > > Actually, wanted to get some input on which system is better? I know > windows guys like to use tortoise, and the last time I checked there > wasn't a tortoiseSVN, but it's available now. What would be the > prefered system? SVN looks more modern, and it appears to be able to > handle binary files. I'm a sysadmin, either will work for my configs, > but I have developers on client and server side that need something. I > have no experience in this area and would like some feedback from guys > like SJS and Andy. >
SVN is far superior in features and architecture. It can be a pain to install, but yum did it for me fine. I imagine apt would as well. CVS may be considered outmoded SW. (Actually, svn is, at best, up to date and lacks features, notably tags or labels. But it's good enough.) If you have nothing invested in CVS and don't use CVS projects, bypass it. SVN was designed to follow the CVS work flow and command structures as far as possible without actually reproducing the CVS inadequacies. Cannot comment on high level interfaces. In fact, I'd be interested in your comments after you use them. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
