Difference between revisions of "CVS vs SVN"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Salty-horse (talk | contribs) |
Salty-horse (talk | contribs) (Added svn-book link) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
=== Contra CVS === | === Contra CVS === | ||
* No support for versioned renames/moves (CVS repos hackery is not even remotely a replacement): Fingolfin | * No support for versioned renames/moves (CVS repos hackery is not even remotely a replacement): Fingolfin | ||
=== See Also === | |||
* [http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/apa.html Subversion for CVS Users] - Lists the major differences. Taken from the svn book | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 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.
- Easier hook scripts (pre/post commit, etc): SumthinWicked (I use it for Doxygen after commits)
- Prevents accidental committing of conflicted files.
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
See Also
- Subversion for CVS Users - Lists the major differences. Taken from the svn book