On 4/26/05, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
So, it looks like the comparison page is either out-of-date, or incorrect.
I agree. My original point about CVSNT was that it supports "Merge Points", which makes doing multiple merges between branches a lot less painful than it is with CVS or even SVN. I did some testing of CVSNT a week or so ago, and this is indeed a nice feature, but I did encounter some instabilities in the tool. The rename support seems especially buggy and even warns you when you use it: "cvsnt rename: Warning: rename is still experimental and may not behave as you would expect" I was even able to get the client to dump core; not very confidence-inducing. If you have a Windows-heavy user base and a legacy CVS environment, CVSNT may be the right tool. However I don't think all of the added authentication and other functionality is pertinent for Boost, especially if the server-side will be running on a UNIX box. I believe SVN has all of the features that make it a CVS killer. The branch/merge semantics are a lot less cumbersome than with CVS, particularly when you take into account all of the tagging required to make CVS branch/merge manageable. When combined with a little bit of procedure (e.g. noting where merges happen in your commit comments), the lack of a history-sensitive merge is hardly a showstopper. Presumably a future release of SVN will include this feature (it is a medium-term goal on their roadmap) and then you won't even need to worry about those merge-point comments. I say full-speed ahead into SVN-land! -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com