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

AW: CVS v. SVN

From: Lars Heineken <lars.heineken_at_diasemi.com>
Date: 2006-02-23 16:59:13 CET

The "copy, modify, merge" functionality is the basis of both SVN and CVS.
SVN supports atomic commits, that's a feature CVS misses. It means that a commit is not visible ot the others unless executed sucessfully. Maybe he got that wrong ?
SVN does support locking of files if enabled.

        -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
        Von: Mark Galbreath [mailto:GalbreathM@gao.gov]
        Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2006 16:34
        An: subversion-2006Q1@ryandesign.com
        Cc: psusi@cfl.rr.com; christian@endrun.org; subversion@philip.pjkh.com; users@subversion.tigris.org
        Betreff: CVS v. SVN
        
        
        I've read all the literature on the svn website, and the online book at red-bean, and thought I understood the differences between CVS (a locking reporsitory) and SVN (a merging repository). Then I got into a discussion with a guy at the office I just met and he tells me I have it all backwards. Then tells me that developers can walk on each other's code with CVS, but not SVN because SVN locks write access. This is 180 degrees off from my understanding. He maintained that SVN is way better than CVS, but I got the impression he didn't know what he was talking about, and I am still too green to stand my ground in such a debate.
         
        Thoughts?
         
        mark
Received on Thu Feb 23 17:08:41 2006

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