Re: Re: CVS Application
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
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.