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

RE: CVS v. SVN

From: Gale, David <David.Gale_at_Hypertherm.com>
Date: 2006-02-23 17:14:54 CET

Mark Galbreath wrote:
> 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.

You're both wrong. Or, rather, you're both only partially correct.

CVS is a merging repository; I don't think it has any support for locks.
Subversion is by default also a merging repository, but you *can* lock
files to prevent others from changing them; this is especially useful
for dealing with binary files, which tend to not merge nicely.

Of course, he was right that SVN is way better than CVS. :-)

-David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 23 17:28:40 2006

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