I'm somewhat surprised that my favorite feature (and least favorite
CVS mis-feature) hasn't been mentioned.
In CVS it is not possible to check the status of a file without
updating that file (possibly merging in changes as well). At the
office we're stuck in CVS and I am continually bumping into this. All
I want to know is whether the file is up to date either against
latest checked in revision or against the last time I updated.
Status checking and updates are different concepts! CVS makes me do
both whether I want to or not where Subversion lets me decide which I
want to do.
For me that's worth the price of admission right there.
Cheers!
Bruce.
On Oct 5, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Mark wrote:
> Having admined 700+ CVS projects for the past 2 years, I am thoroughly
> sick and tired of CVS. On top of all the aforementioned CVS bugaboos,
> I have to run crons every hour to keep the permissions/ownerships
> straight.
>
> Admining SVN is a breeze compared to CVS. Using it is great, too. It
> is so easy to see the branches and tags since they are directories.
> It makes so much more sense that the whole repository is versioned
> instead of each file individually.
>
> You mentioned you are on RHEL. Personally, I ripped out all the SVN
> related rpms (neon, apr, apr-uril, httpd) and compiled and installed
> the latest versions myself. Did you use the RHEL rpms?
>
> I've had repos on svn now for a couple months. I have some tiny ones,
> and I have a couple that are about 5 gig - no issues.
>
> On 10/4/06, Steve Martin <sm.drdc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm just curious.. not meant to be a flame/troll etc.
>>
>> The last contract I was on, we needed an SCM system. I chose CVS,
>> but the
>> developers decided they wanted to try Subversion.
>>
>> So.. we went with subversion. We went with it, *I* dealt with the
>> head
>> aches, the fact that you can't make a simple commit without
>> changing the
>> version # of the entire repo,
>> and so many of the other complaints / issues I've seen on this list.
>>
>> My new job also required an SCM system, and I set CVS up in half
>> the time,
>> without having to explain why the rev # of the entire repo and
>> every file
>> checked out changes during a commit, no "malformed this or that"
>> errors,
>> no issues with apache authentication, no issues with svn -d, nothing.
>>
>> It worked perfectly like CVS always has, which subversion never
>> has for me
>> or a lot of the others on this list.
>>
>> So... all I'm asking is, what is so great about subversion that
>> would make
>> people want to give up the tried and tested SCM system, for
>> something that
>> seemingly has so many problems?
>>
>> And the previous SVN setup was on RHEL 4, and the current CVS
>> setup is on
>> RHEL 4. I'm certainly not a noob to this kind of thing, and did
>> RTFM before
>> setting subversion up, but it never worked for us like advertised,
>> while CVS
>> worked exactly like CVS always does... import a file, only IT'S
>> rev changes,
>> not everything in that dir or the entire repo...
>>
>>
>> love,
>>
>> me
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark
> "Blessed is he who finds happiness in his own foolishness, for he will
> always be happy."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
> !DSPAM:452572a2172564364311965!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 6 07:36:32 2006