Re: CVS should die

Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:
> <Advocacy>
> Yes, some do. At least SVN (Subversion) can handle moves very well, and 
> especially it doesn't loose history on moves/renames.
> SVN holds it's repo entries in a database like 'filesystem', which can be 
> backed by BDB4 or flat files (as of 1.1).
> SVN has proven to be stable in many OSS projects, and vastly superior over CVS 
> especially in handling multi-GB projects containing binary files in our 
> company.
> 
> I refrain from listing all the advantages, if interested, have a look for 
> yourself at http://subversion.tigris.org
> 
> </Advocacy>
<MoreAdvocacy>
Another compelling reason to use SVN is that one of their long term 
goals is to use an SQL backend. PostreSQL must be the absolute best 
choice for that, right? So knowledge of SVN and some future 
collaboration could perhaps be beneficial for both parties.

SVN is also targeted as a CVS replacement and a CVS user will feel very 
much at home.
</MoreAdvocacy>

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren