> It's not obvious? One, OVERHEAD. Two, people lose interest, go away, > or just lack time. If those people happen to be the one's providing > or maintaining the servers, Bad Things can happen. It's better to > avoid those risks if you can.
we had a similar talk when the naviserver fork was discussed, concerning the website. the final decision was to use SF and a wiki, which seems a good solution (also I don't admire the performance sometims, but that's another and unimportant flamewar topic :*) If I would use it on a daily basis, maybe I would ask the same question like Vlad...). > My gut feel (which could, of course, be wrong): If you're going to go > to the trouble to convert from CVS, change to something dramatically > better - one of the new-fangled distributed version control systems - > not to something merely slightly better. but in this special context, is this possible at all? does SF offer anything else than CVS and Subversion? If not than I interpret your listing of alternativ RCSystems as a vote for leaving SF :-)) and we don't work on the linux kernel, like linus :-) > I don't find Subversion very interesting, as from reports they've > created a great big codebase in order to obtain a rather modest > improvement in functionality over CVS. The distributed tools seem to > have much more potential. But, Subversion was ready earliest, and > various open source projects have adopted it, so you clearly want the > svn client available. if you ask me whether to use CVS or SVN i don't have to think a second: SVN. it's for people that know CVS, are happy with most of the underlying model, but not with its flaws. SVN was developed from scratch, the repository is based on Berkeley DB, you don't need repository access for diffs etc., a new revision number for the whole project after every commit, version control for directories (copy, move, add, delete, mkdir), transactions with rollbacks, more protocols to access repositories (svn, svn+ssh, file, http [apache2+webdav], https), cheap copy when creating branches and tags (a tag is simply a "copy" of e.g. a directory hierarchy using almost no space until you branch), nice handling of binary files (everything is "binary" and you can set/change mimetypes), explicit setting of keywords you want to use (like "Id"). for fun, just try "cvs2svn". or take a look here: http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/10/03/cvs-to-subversion-with-cvs2svn.html Bernd.
