-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Walter Landry Subject: Re: [boost] Moving from CVS to Subversion?
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
I am just posting this here to alert those who look at subject lines to what we're discussing. To review the whole discussion, see http://news.gmane.org/find-
root.php?message_id=%3cuk6pujjyu.fsf%40boost%2dconsulting.com%3e
One thread you might find interesting
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.comp.version- control.subversion.devel&article=53583
It talks about the troubles Mono had in going from CVS to Subversion. YMMV.
My personal opinion is that, if you want a centralized version control system, you aren't going to do significantly better than Subversion. There are a fair number of large projects using it, and, especially with the new fsfs backend, it seems to work pretty well for most people. [Brian Braatz] I am currently running cvs and subversion side by side and wanted to share my experiences:
We have been running CVS for 4 years and SVN for about 2 CVS **** We have about 50 people hitting one server CVS seems to handle this nicely We are using cvs for 2 projects Cvs add not being recursive is a pain in the butt. I am several states away from the cvs server I am currently STILL adding boost 1.32 to a repository I started this last Friday On the SVN repository, this took a few hours (same net connection) Also the recursive "svn add" command meant I did not have to baby sit it SVN (Subversion) **************** Svn add is recursive Most of the SVN commands are very similar to cvs Seems significantly faster than cvs We had ONE instance in 2 years where we lost data- IT guys never figured out what it was- might have been a power surge or SVN we don't know We have never lost data on the cvs server We are only running about 5 guys against our svn box You can move files and retain history Retrieving files FROM history is not as simple as cvs It uses the berkely db backend Which I am not familiar with nor are my people experts in it I can "svn add" while on an airplane, but I have to be online to "svn commit" It has transactional commits- Which means if something bombs halfway through a commit- NONE of the files are added We have been bit by this one on CVS in our projects My Opinion: I like SVN, but we have not completely switched over to it For Boost, the redundant servers from sourceforge is a compelling reason to stay cvs. I am not aware if you can get the same thing from sourceforge with svn. Svn does not however tax the server as much as cvs, hence there is more client side processing Anyone else have any experience with these two side by side they wish to share?