[ajug-members] Which Source Version Control System do you prefer?

[Les A. Hazlewood]

+1 Subversion again.  It has been a great replacement for our CVS and
very easy to use.  I love it.  If your developers are comfortable with
CVS, switching to Subversion is pretty smooth and painless.

Here are my 7 most favorite things about Subversion over CVS:

1.  Diffs are done on the client side before they are sent to the
server, therefore, only changes get sent over the wire - your commits
are _much_ faster (CVS sends the entire file for every change and diffs
on the server - rather inefficient).

2.  Binary diffs - a duplicate copy of every binary file is not kept in
subversion, like in CVS - just the changes from one revision to the
other, like with text files.  Subversion is much more efficient with
disk space.

3.  Instant revisioning (implicit tagging) - every commit increments a
global revision number.  You can check out any revision in the past and
get an instant snapshot of the previous state - you don't have to
manually create tags for this purpose.  You can create nice named tags
if you want, but you don't have to.

4.  Constant time branching/tagging - a branch looks like a total copy
of the trunk, but subversion only maintains the differences in the
branch on the server, making the time to create/merge a branch very
short.

5.  Use an RDBMS or the file system as your backing data store.  We like
to use the tried-and-true file system for our repository (fs backup
strategies, etc), but you could use a relational db if you wanted and
that was in tune with your organization's practices.

6.  Versioned directories - what a relief!

7.  Atomic commits - 'nuff said.

Les

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:19:26 -0500, "Barry Hawkins" <barry at alltc.com>
said:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Bill Siggelkow wrote:
> > Subversion -- it is the most natural evolution from CVS and it fixes 
> > the CVS headaches of unversioned directories. There are other  benefits
> > such as ability to perform disconnected operations,  authentication and
> > authorization via Apache 2.0 server, WebDAV  support, cross-platform,
> > open source, free, etc.
> > 
> > Can't say enough good things about it so far ....
> > 
> > -Bill Siggelkow
> [...]
> +1 on Subversion, for all the stuff Bill mentions plus atomic commits.
> Few things suck more than a partial and corrupt CVS commit.
> 
> - --
> Barry Hawkins
> All Things Computed
> site: www.alltc.com
> weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
> 
> Registered Linux User #368650
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFDjz6uHuKcDICy0QoRAnEfAJ0cLDFK9QSN4JPhumarleNBGPLPDACggLz4
> Loeg2z4T9GK/rrUnd+WBv9Y=
> =xiTz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> ajug-members mailing list
> ajug-members at ajug.org
> http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members