Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [atlantisdev] Re: Any moderators here?

Expand Messages
  • Anthony Briggs
    ... The biggest thing in my opinion is that it s not hideously broken. Having recently gone back from svn to cvs due to switching jobs probably makes it stick
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 4, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:10:59PM -0800, Christopher Allen - GM Fangs wrote:
      > Max Shariy wrote:
      > > As an offtopic, what makes SVN better than CVS? I know I can read the
      > > documentation, but since you already know the answer, if you can give
      > > it just in few lines that would be great.
      >
      > The biggest thing in my opinion is that SVN using an underlying database,
      > berkeley-db, and has implemented real atomic transaction handling of commits.
      > I've had CVS repositories become corrupted because of failures mid-check,
      > which happens a lot more often when users are distributed all over the world
      > rather then when they are in the same building.

      The biggest thing in my opinion is that it's not hideously broken.
      Having recently gone back from svn to cvs due to switching jobs probably
      makes it stick out more to me, but there's a distinct lack of basic
      features such as atomic repository-wide commits, decent
      branching/forking, even the status command is missing.

      From memory, you also want to avoid the db backend for svn, and go for
      fs-fs, although that could be out of date.

      > Other then that, in my opinion SVN tends to be better at handling variants and
      > forks -- however, it does so in a different way then CVS so this functionality
      > is controversial.

      Hmm, not sure what's so controversial about it, other than it works
      well.

      > SVN also handles file renaming where CVS does not.

      Ah, another one that I'd forgotten above. You can rename entire
      directories too.

      Anthony

      --
      ------------------------------------------------------
      HyPerACtIVe?! HEY, Who ArE yoU cAllInG HYPERaCTive?!
      abriggs@...
      ------------------------------------------------------
    • Enno Rehling
      ... No, that s still pretty much correct. We had a lot of trouble on a project that used the bdb backend, and have switched to the fs backend for new projects
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 4, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Anthony Briggs wrote:
        > From memory, you also want to avoid the db backend for svn, and go for
        > fs-fs, although that could be out of date.

        No, that's still pretty much correct. We had a lot of trouble on a
        project that used the bdb backend, and have switched to the fs backend
        for new projects and never looked back (though the project that's on db
        continues to be plagued by it, I believe).

        In addition to what's been said about branching/forking and the overall
        speed of svn vs. cvs, the move command gets my 2 cents. Being able to
        move or rename a file in the repository without losing the history
        information is so damn nice.

        Enno.
        --
        We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
        believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
        - Richard Dawkins
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.