I'm just curious.. not meant to be a flame/troll etc.
The last contract I was on, we needed an SCM system. I chose CVS, but the
developers decided they wanted to try Subversion.
So.. we went with subversion. We went with it, *I* dealt with the head
aches, the fact that you can't make a simple commit without changing the
version # of the entire repo,
and so many of the other complaints / issues I've seen on this list.
My new job also required an SCM system, and I set CVS up in half the time,
without having to explain why the rev # of the entire repo and every file
checked out changes during a commit, no "malformed this or that" errors,
no issues with apache authentication, no issues with svn -d, nothing.
It worked perfectly like CVS always has, which subversion never has for me
or a lot of the others on this list.
So... all I'm asking is, what is so great about subversion that would make
people want to give up the tried and tested SCM system, for something that
seemingly has so many problems?
And the previous SVN setup was on RHEL 4, and the current CVS setup is on
RHEL 4. I'm certainly not a noob to this kind of thing, and did RTFM before
setting subversion up, but it never worked for us like advertised, while CVS
worked exactly like CVS always does... import a file, only IT'S rev changes,
not everything in that dir or the entire repo...
Received on Thu Oct 5 03:13:54 2006