RE: Re: CVS/SVN comparison

G'day Peter,

> I think that a fair summary of any CVS/SVN comparison is that (in
> spite of its claims) SVN is NOT a replacement for CVS.

"Fair" summary? I beg to differ! ;-)

Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain some use cases that CVS
supports that SVN does not? I for one would like to know what I've
lost my migrating, and I'm sure the SVN development team would love
to add to their list of future enhancements.

> It is however a set of primitive operations on top of which a CVS
> replacement could be built.

Of course we'd have to turn off some of SVN's primitives (versioned
file moves, versioned directory operations) since a true "CVS
replacement" wouldn't be allowed to provide any of those operations.
;-)

Cheers,
Peter
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Monks http://www.sydneyclimbing.com/
pmonks_at_sydneyclimbing.com http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/4455/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 22 23:59:56 2004