Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> What's needed is a good window client like WinCVS, however...
>
> Chris
>

There is a number of those, our shop uses (and makes programs for) both
windows and unix (and might soon use mac's aswell), so it's very
important that there exists a good client for each. Especially if you
version html pages and such that is edited by people that isn't so techy.

We're using TortoiseSvn right now, it's implemented as an explorer
extension, so you just rightclick on a file or directory to
update/commit/whatever.

What i like with svn is that it's a nobrainer for old cvs guys like me
to use it. It solves all the problems with CVS right now, and promises
more features later on (like much better than CVS merging).

The new buzz is distributed versioning systems these days, but i
question if that is called for in the vast majority of projects out there.

If the only reason is for offline work that can be achieved with
subversion too, with svk for example (haven't tried it, but been told
that it works fine). Svk handles or will(?) handle distributed repos in
the bk sense aswell, i believe.

But ofcourse arch has alot of features that are extremly cool, the
reason why i didn't evaluate it further was that it didn't work on
windows well, the fixed weird branching/version naming and the
complexity of learning for our developers since they already use cvs.

Surely the two systems should be evaluated against their competiors
within the same distribution models, not cross the boundries, since the
design is very different.

Subversions strength is it's percieved simplicity, and archs strength is
it's complexity.

Regards,
Magnus