Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com>

From: David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com>
To:
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2004-03-24T19:45:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Frank Wiles wrote:
>>Why?  not that I'm for a chance from something that isn't broken, but
>>what advantages does subversion give us over what we already have?
> 
>   Subversion has lots of "little" benefits, but nothing that would be
>   a major incentive to switch.  The biggest benefits I can think of
>   of the top of my head are: 
> 
>   * Commits are actually atomic 
>   * protocol sends diffs in both directions which speeds up everything
>   * branching and tagging are cheap constant time operations
>   * the time it takes to make changes is based on the size of the
>     change, not the size of the project
>   * whole directories are versioned not just files.  So for example
>     if you for some reason wanted to rename src/backend/bootstrap.c
>     to src/backend/bootup.c you wouldn't lose your revision history
>     information.  Same thing goes for complete reorganizations of the
>     file layouts.  

Actually, the things you mentioned are pretty "major", as most of the 
above are really broken/painful to do/very slow in CVS. But, all of 
those probably will not motivate a seasoned CVS user enough to migrate.

So one might ask, what *will* motivate a die-hard CVS user? A real-close 
Bitkeeper clone? :-)

-- 
dave