Re: SVN vs. AccuRev?

I am not familiar with AcuRev, but it appears to try to work in a
similar way as ClearCase UCM. That is, developers don't work in the
same area. Instead, they all have their own private branches, and
deliver code to their project.

I am not a fan of this type of work because it easily allows
developers to ignore changes taking place in the project. Besides,
every delivery is a merge which means each delivery is a chance for
merge conflicts. I used ClearCase UCM on a small, but rapidly changing
project, and I would end up resolving two or three merge conflicts
each day.

If your developers are familiar with CVS, then they would have few
issues using Subversion which has a very similar workflow.

The main changes are:

* Checking out via URL can seem complex. Once developers set their
CVSROOT, they simply say "cvs co foo". In Subversion, you always have
to say "svn co http://repository/dev/foo/trunk" which makes some
developers a bit queasy. However, they do get use to it fairly
quickly.

* Subversion does atomic commits. I have to tell developers not to do
one-file-at-a-time
   commits.
* Branches and tags are part of the URL while in CVS they were a
parameter you passed:
    $ svn co http://repository/dev/foo/branches/1.3 foo
    $ cvs -rBRANCH_1-3 foo
  The biggest problem I've had were developers forgetting to put
"trunk" on the end
  of their URL and then checking out all branches and tags into their
working directory.
  They wanted to know why Subversion takes so long to check things
out. They only
  do that once.

* File properties are a new feature, and if you use them, it takes a
while to get use to them.

* RCS Keywords are no longer automatic. If you want them, you have to
set a property.

Other than that, CVS and Subversion work pretty much the same way.
Except Subversion is nicer.

--
David Weintraub
qazwart_at_gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Adam Levy <adamlevy1_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> My shop is considering both SVN and AccuRev (currently using cvs).  Most of the techies here have primarily used CVS and have little-to-no hands-on experience with either SVN or AccuRev.  I found some anti-SVN propaganda at the accurev site, but I think many of the shortcomings they point out are either non-issues or have been addressed in more recent versions of svn.  Can anyone point me to some good and *recent* comparisons between the two tools?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org