Re: Subversion vs. CVS (was Re: Congratulations!)

On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 01:43, Mike Mason wrote:

> A lot of times I hear, "Subversion, 3 years in development, and it's
> nothing new" --

This is pretty common FUD, I hear it a lot too.

But I don't think it's even worth acknowledging or debating that
criticism. The people who say such things are missing the whole point
of Subversion; they disagree with what I call the "fundamental axiom"
of the project:

   CVS is a good model for version control,
       it just wasn't implemented well.

Some people say Subversion is just "polishing a turd", but my take is
that we're polishing a "diamond in the rough". We take the CVS model
and add directory versioning, atomic commits, database backend,
properties, efficient binary handling, flexible network abilities, and a
solid C API. It's what CVS should have been in the first place.

But if someone doesn't like the CVS model to begin with, there's just no
point in trying to sell them Subversion. Point them to arch, monotone,
svk, aegis, or some other system with a different model.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 7 17:12:36 2004