Re: CVS v. SVN

"Mark Galbreath" <GalbreathM@gao.gov> writes:
> 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?

He's probably referring to Subversion's path-based authorization features:

http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch06s04.html#svn-ch-6-sect-4.4

You don't have to use them, of course. Subversion's basic working
model is the same as CVS's. The "locking" people talk about with CVS
usually refers to an implementation detail of CVS's repository that
causes CVS to disallow multiple people from committing to the same
directory at the same time. This is in no way a "feature" of CVS :-).

-Karl

-- 
www.collab.net  <>  CollabNet  |  Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org