After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier), an
earthling, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
Which brings me to another question .. has anybody considered using
subversion instead of CVS ?
Why? not that I'm for a chance from something that isn't broken, but what
advantages does subversion give us over what we already have?
It's a newer design, offering some nice features:
- Directories, renames, and file meta-data are versioned.
- Commits are truly atomic. (DB guys should like that :-).)
- Branching and tagging are cheap (constant time) operations
- Costs are proportional to change size, not data size
- Efficient handling of binary files
- Parseable output (one of the things better about SCCS than RCS/CVS)
Unfortunately, they have only just gotten to the point of having a
stable version. Until very recently, different versions of
Subversion couldn't expect to talk to one another, which is a Very Bad
Thing.
In another year, it might be worth holding a debate over whether there
is value to considering Subversion or one of the Arch descendants as
an alternative to CVS. I wouldn't think it's time yet. And it would
be as wise to consider Arch as well; it has some pretty interesting
repository features...
--
let name=cbbrowne and tld=cbbrowne.com in name ^ @ ^ tld;;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
Those who doubt the importance of a convenient notation should try
writing a LISP interpreter in COBOL or doing long division with Roman
numerals. -- Hal Fulton
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
