On Friday 01 December 2006 16:06, David Landry wrote:
> In what ways is it easier to use? Everything I've read says that svn
> commands and cvs commands are virtually identical, except that svn has
> some additional things.
> What makes svn so much more preferable to cvs? I can understand wanting
> to have svn for versioning binary files, but what benefits are there for
> text files?
>
> David Landry
>
Subversion was written to act in a client-server over the network
fashion
(CVS was originally written for local usage, sort of like RCS or SCCS, but
more multi-user friendly). Also, it is fairly easy to integrate into apache2
(mod-dav-svn), which gives limited web access to repository contents (dav-svn
doesn't do revisions on pure http, so you only see HEAD from a
browser--although any svn client can do revisions, so it's not a terrible
problem (and most webdav clients can edit the repository)). Google for
svn-book (there's a book published by O'Reilly that is available (verbatim)
online) which can tell you most of the other differences.
Most of it boils down to how copies, renames, branches/tags are handled
(svn
treats them all as copies, which it makes really cheap==fast and with less
space), along with whether revisions belong to the file or the repository
state (svn tracks revisions by changes to the whole repository, whereas CVS
tracks changes to each file).
- Mike Larsen
--
Politicians are like diapers...
they should be changed often, and for the same reason
The cure for boredom is curiosity.
There is no cure for curiosity.
-- Dorothy Parker
--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG.
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
