On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 09:43 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > Hello, > > With Squid 3.0 branching event approaching, perhaps now is a good time > to decide whether we want to switch from CVS to Subversion? > > Pros: > + Many consider svn to be "overall better" than CVS.
Its branch model is terrible. > + Svn supports renaming and moving files (we may want that for 3.1). Actually, its supports copies, not renames. Its rename command is built on a copy primitive, the same as it uses for branch. Elegant in some regards. > + Svn working copy diffs are very fast (no network delays). > + Svn handles binary files and keyword substitution better. > + Branching and tagging is a much simpler concept in svn. > + SorceForge svn services may be faster (I do not know that). > + Subversion offers more remote access methods (e.g., WebDAV). > Cons: > - Some consider svn to be "overall worse" than CVS. I am one of those, especially when the cvsnt groups' work is considered. > - Lossless migration is possible, but takes time/work. > - Henrik's CVS scripts will need to be changed to support svn. > - Some CVS veterans will hate svn branching and tagging. > - Some svn newbies may modify tagged snapshots. > - Some web pages and scripts accessing CVS will need to be changed. > > Did I miss anything important? svn is a poor choice today, projects that have moved to svn are already moving on a step further to the generation of distributed version control systems that have matured. > Do pros outweigh the cons? I'd really encourage a migration to bzr, http://bazaar-vcs.org/, if we are to migrate at all. Pros ---- * Distributed [no requirement to sign up or join a group in order to be able to use the full vcs power, and a bunch of corollaries like very fast local logging and history bisection etc]. * Has a centralised 'svn-like' capability built in for projects that want/need it. * Renames and moves supported * Binary files - check * Branching and tagging is simpler than CVS and more managable than svn. * Like svn, can operate over http/ssh/custom wire protocol but also adds ftp support and other dumb protocols [with commensurately lower performance due to latency multiplication]. * Written in python - trivially extensible * I am a core contributor to it; so support is readily available :). * Disk storage overhead is lower than SVN Cons ---- * Sourceforge don't offer bzr hosting. (The distributed nature lowers the value of a separate 'devel' site though, and launchpad.net does offer hosting if we want it) * As above, lossless conversion does take work. I don't think VCS migration is at all coupled to the 3.1 branching. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
