Re: CVSNT and Subversion binary file handling comparison
From: Kevin Grover <kogrover_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 2006-03-18 01:54:48 CET
Interesting.
However, keep in mind that Subversion keeps a local 'clean' copy of files. When you commit those clean copies must be updated also. If you where to test updates on a very slow or dialup connection (or with vary large binary files), I'd guess that you'd find Subversion faster: It creates the deltas locally and only transmits that data. Also, because of the local clean copies, you can do comparisions and reverts on your working copy while not having access to the repository (while on a plane for example).
Futhermore, with Subversion you get versioned properties and directory and rename tracking. Because of all of these, I would suggest you not be 'fooled' by a possibly meaningless statistic.
After using both CVS and SVN, I am loath to go back to CVS. I find branching and tags much easier in SVN.
An Off-Topic Aside:
Anway, good luck. It would be interesting to see a real-world comparision of CVSNT and SVN, but keep in mind the other benifits before deciding.
- Kevin
----- Original Message ----
Hi, we are evaluating CVSNT and Subversion.
Comparing binary files handling, we've found that CVSNT seems to be much more efficient than Subversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
|
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.