Re: [OT] CVS vs. SVN
* David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> [061219 21:35]:
> I've been using CVS (and RCS before it) for several years new. I've
> also looked at switched to SVN, but seem to recall that there was an SVN
> "feature" whereby SVN applied to same version number to all files in the
> project (repository?) whenever you checked something in. I prefer a
> more traditional scheme whereby version numbers are managed on a
> per-file basis, and only change when the file changes. Did I
> misunderstand something?
SVN is a good system; I've been using it for several years. On
several occasions I have created a new repository from a backup of the
old repository.
It's really not a matter of a repository version number being applied
to all files in the repository. Rather, think of the repository
version number in terms of a snapshot of the repository at a
particular moment in time.
It's easy to become accustomed the SVN concept of repository version,
as opposed to the CVS system of file version. The concept is
particularly nice when the repository is backed up on a regular basis.
I backup to a set of flash memory sticks which are rotated. I tag the
flash device with the repository version (such as #594), which is the
only version number of which I need to keep track. The concept also
is nice for projects (such as software development) in which the
revision level of the system is of more significance than is the
revision level of the various files which comprise the system.
I was intimidated by the compexity of CVS; but Subversion was easy to
learn. There is good documentation at http://subversion.tigris.org,
and there is an on-line book by O'Reilly.
RLH
Reply to: