[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Subversion vs. Clear Case

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-07-06 17:17:30 CEST

David Weintraub <qazwart@gmail.com> writes:
> I was not a great fan of CVS, but Subversion is different. The ability
> to use standard protocols for server/client conversations. The ability
> to use any client you wish to talk to the server. The fact that the
> Admin does not have to worry about the Subversion clients used by the
> developers. And, of course being open sourced, means that you don't
> have to worry about licensing problems.

I could be misunderstanding something here, but:

Your paragraph starts out by saying that Subversion is different from
CVS, and then goes on to list a bunch of differences. The last
difference listed seems to imply that CVS is not open source. But in
fact, CVS is 100% open source (it's licensed under the GNU GPL).

> Still, there are several green areas in Subversion in some pretty
> important areas. Merging should be much better. The svn:log is
> overloaded because you can't easily search for properties. You can't
> set revision properties when you create a revision. The fact that
> branching and tagging are not first class concepts in Subversion is a
> major problem. I hope that these problems will be solved as Subversion
> gets more mature. Subversion certainly has a lot of promise.

Yup, agree that we need to address these (with the possible exception
of the branching and tagging comment, not sure about that yet).


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 6 18:06:51 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.