On 23 Jan 2009, at 14:35, Kenneth Goldman wrote:
> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday_at_crashcourse.ca> wrote on 01/23/2009
> 05:46:47 AM:
>
> > most people on this list are technically adept with subversion.
> > where's the marketing? where's the ammunition that jeremy could
> take
> > into a meeting with his new bosses?
>
> As a long time CVS user who recently had to move to SVN, I propose:
>
> Pluses:
>
> - The main reason for the migration was that CVS required everyone
> to have user accounts on the CVS server, which compromised security.
> SVN does not.
>
> - Atomic check in with automatic tagging
>
You forgot the really big one which is that directories are versioned.
>
>
> Minuses (please don't shoot the messenger):
>
> - Documentation. The CVS manual tells you how to do tasks. The SVN
> manual gives you SVN theory from which you can eventually figure
> out how to do tasks.
>
Or type "svn help <command>"
>
>
> - Integration with other tools. E.g., CVS with emacs just works.
> Integrating SVN is a project.
>
If only there was a Subversion plug-in for emacs....
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=svn+emacs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>
>
> - Newline conversion for Windows is automatic and cannot easily
> be turned off.
>
That's a description of CVS's handling of newlines, right? Subversion
is much better at handling newlines than CVS. When I worked at a
company which used CVS for developing on both Windows and Unix we had
all sorts of fun and games. Especially before we twigged that the
Cygwin cvs client thought it was running on Unix.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1045083
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-01-23 18:03:12 CET