Difference between revisions of "CVS vs SVN"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Salty-horse (talk | contribs) |
m (→Pro Subversion) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
=== Pro Subversion === | === Pro Subversion === | ||
* Support for versioned renames/moves (impossible with CVS): Fingolfin | * Support for versioned renames/moves (impossible with CVS): Fingolfin | ||
* Overall revision number makes build versioning and regression testing much easier: Ender | |||
* Atomic commits: Fingolfin | * Atomic commits: Fingolfin | ||
* Intuitive (directory-based) branching and tagging. | * Intuitive (directory-based) branching and tagging. | ||
Revision as of 11:45, 20 January 2006
On this page, we are trying to collect argument pro and contra both staying with CVS, and switching to CVS. Behind each "argument" is a list of people who agree that this particular argument is valid. We currently have no other realistic choices (since SF.net offers us exactly those two), so I am not comparing more systems here.
Pro Subversion
- Support for versioned renames/moves (impossible with CVS): Fingolfin
- Overall revision number makes build versioning and regression testing much easier: Ender
- Atomic commits: Fingolfin
- Intuitive (directory-based) branching and tagging.
Pro CVS
- Lots of people know how to use it: Fingolfin
- Lots of documentation available: Fingolfin
Contra Subversion
- ?
Contra CVS
- No support for versioned renames/moves (CVS repos hackery is not even remotely a replacement): Fingolfin