Re: CVS/SVN comparison

To my mind they were never accurate :-) at least the conclusions they
draw weren't.

"The basis of SVN is a relational database (BerkleyDB)"

Alarm bells are ringing. They don't know what a relational database is
or at least they don't know what BDB is. The level of technical
expertise of the author does not appear to be high.

Under repository format the list lots of advantages of BDB over the CVS
RCS format such as transactions, better concurrent access etc but these
are all apparently outweighed by the fact that it's not "available for
user interference". The use of the word "interference" is telling.
Personally, I regard the opaqueness of the repository as an advantage
because it discourages people from attempting to hack it by hand. How
easy is it to correct an RCS file anyway? It looks like some sort of
diff format to me. I'll bet it's easy to screw up just by getting an @
sign out of place or something. BTW FSFS is still opaque and wouldn't
help Subversion win this one in the eyes of the author.

Subversion wins on speed, but they still can't resist getting a dig in
about having a "full backup of all work files on your computer".
Newsflash - disk is cheap.

Tags and branches: they fall into the trap that people here sometimes
do of assuming that tags are functionality. They're not. They are the
CVS *implementation* used to implement things like saving a copy of the
state of your code at certain milestones such as releases.

Notification: I think they have a point here, although cvs edit
doesn't always work well in practice, particularly, if like me you
forget to enable read only checkouts.

Transactions: some of the other features are labeled "important". To
me, the fact that it is possible for the CVS repository to be in a
logically inconsistent state if a failure occurs mid check-in is
disastrous. How "cvs edit" rates "important" and this doesn't is
totally beyond me.

Availability: What platforms is CVS available for that Subversion isn't?

</rant> I've had a bad day.

On Oct 13, 2004, at 18:30, Andrew n marshall wrote:

> Searching the web, I came up with this:
> http://www.pushok.com/soft_svn_vscvs.php
> but it is undated. Are the comments provided still accurate?
>
>
> Anm
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
>

--
Jeremy Pereira
http://www.jeremyp.net
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org