RE: Move from CVSNT to SVN?
From: Johan Corveleyn <johan.corveleyn_at_uz.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:23:04 +0200
Just adding my .02:
We migrated from CVS(notNT) to SVN half a year ago. I agree with most of the things already said (advantages like atomic commits, renames/moves, active development, a lot of great features, ...). It's usually a very good "upgrade".
But to balance things a little, I'm adding some more critical sounds:
- SVN is slower than CVS for "log" and "annotate" for a particular file. This is understandable given the difference in architecture (CVS has all the information in that single ,v file; SVN has to plough through a huge pile of revisions to get the info). Usually it will still be ok, and you won't notice the difference. But we have some really horrible edge cases here: a 2MB xml file with 6000 revisions (and counting).
As I said, this is an extreme case. For normal source files with maybe a couple hundred revisions it's fine.
- Unlike with CVS, there is no easy way in SVN to see which tags (or branches) are "attached" to a particular version of a file. You can see in a tag or branch where the file was "copied from", but you can't see in trunk where a file was "copied to".
- As you hinted yourself, the rename/move support is limited. Of course it's already a huge step forward from CVS (no rename/move support). But there are some limitations (which can come up regularly when you tend to refactor often, rename and move things around, ...):
But all in all, I think the advantages definitely outweigh the negative points (and since it's actively developed, and has a very active user community, I trust that it will keep on improving).
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.