CVS vs Subversioin

[Nobody]

Small distributed team, needs fairly simple CVS-type functions.

The config management service provide is pushing Subversion, but
Subversion seems to have more "could bite you" issues right now.

So! Any experiences between CVS and Subversion? Horror stories?

Gracias

 

[Rhino]

Small distributed team, needs fairly simple CVS-type functions.

The config management service provide is pushing Subversion, but
Subversion seems to have more "could bite you" issues right now.

So! Any experiences between CVS and Subversion? Horror stories?

Gracias

I am far too new to Subversion and CVS to offer any well-informed comments
of my own. However, I recently decided it was time to look at some kind of
CVS-like product. Initially, I tried CVS itself but in the process of
learning how to use it, soon came across people who advised me to switch to
Subversion. There were remarks along the lines of "I'll never go back to CVS
now that I have used Subversion." I didn't find ANYONE who had dumped
Subversion and returned to CVS because Subversion was too buggy.

That's not a very scientific analysis of the stability of Subversion or of
the differences between it and CVS but I thought you might find it useful
while you wait for other replies.

Rhino

 

[Malte]

Small distributed team, needs fairly simple CVS-type functions.

The config management service provide is pushing Subversion, but
Subversion seems to have more "could bite you" issues right now.

So! Any experiences between CVS and Subversion? Horror stories?

Gracias

I believe that those in my company who use CVS today will switch to
Subversion when our tools will support Subversion. Not before.

 

[wald]

Small distributed team, needs fairly simple CVS-type functions.

The config management service provide is pushing Subversion, but
Subversion seems to have more "could bite you" issues right now.

I've used CVS for some time, but I switched to Subversion about a
year and a half ago. Personally, I think CVS has more "could bite
you" issues than Subversion. SVN is simply more elegant and
transparent in its operations than CVS, IMHO.

Some things that come to mind:

* SVN servers can be run based on Apache. This gives you the
security and configurability of Apache applied to your repository
server. The server can be run standalone, too.

* Encryption is no problem using SSH.

* If a SVN repo gets into trouble, there are dedicated tools for
repairing it. These make sure you don't mess up things even more.
CVS, in those cases, often requires you to manually hack server
configuration files. Now, if something *can* bite you, this will.

* There are tools to convert existing CVS repositories to SVN
repositories. See http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/

.... there are probably loads of things I'm forgetting right now. But
in summary: go for SVN, it's simply the better of the two in my
opinion.

Regards,
Wald

 

[Phillip Lord]

Nobody> Small distributed team, needs fairly simple CVS-type
Nobody> functions.

Nobody> The config management service provide is pushing Subversion,
Nobody> but Subversion seems to have more "could bite you" issues
Nobody> right now.

Nobody> So! Any experiences between CVS and Subversion? Horror
Nobody> stories?


General experiences seem to be good. But tool support for Subversion
is not as widespread as CVS.

So if you know neither, try subversion. If you know CVS, and have
standard clients already working use that.

Subversion is designed to replace CVS. I think it will do so.

Phil