Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Ok, I'll give you that: subversion makes moving and manipulating the tree easier than cvs. But then people also complain that subversion's idea of creating tags and branches makes your repository ugly by forcing you to use something similar to their suggested trunk/branches structure.On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:30:37PM -0500, Angelo Bertolli wrote:Unless... they're not the maintainer of the repository. Sometimes you have to use cvs, and some people prefer cvs. I think you're hard pressed to justify using subversion over cvs either, since they're mostly identically the same in functionality.If by "equivalent in functionality" you really mean "subversion fixes nearly every shortcoming and offers many enhancements, including treating directories as first class objectsa dn maintaining version history for moved objects and directories, among other things", then yes, you are right own.
I'm not saying anything bad about subversion--I choose it over cvs also. I just think too much is made over the differences between the two. Or maybe that's just my experience with using them. The only difference I really see above what you mentioned is that subversion binary diffs by default. But diffs on binaries really aren't that useful to me or for keeping track of changes (e.g. word processor documents).The beauty of subversion is that it is a virtual drop in replacement for cvs and yet is so much more.
I did do a lot of surfing a few years ago on which one to use. I read comparison charts, etc. I ended up having to use both. And my impression was, "why did everyone make such a big deal about which one to use? They seem almost identical." I think to the novice it seems more like a big deal is made, also because a novice will probably not see the differences very much anyhow.
Angelo