Re: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback

["B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>]

scolebourne@btopenworld.com writes:

> So basically subversion is great so long as you like the command
> line. I don't object to the fundamental idea of a better CVS (I've
> not used it enough to find any problems with CVS that need
> fixing). But to use it here, excludes users and developers who are
> GUI based, either through a tool (Eclipse) or specific tool
> (ViewCVS).
 
ViewCVS support is almost done, and I'm sure that Eclipse support will
follow. Subversion is hella simple to integrate with other things.

Currently there are at least 2 gui clients under development. RapidSVN
and gSVN come to mind:

    http://rapidsvn.tigris.org/
    http://gsvn.tigris.org/

> Let me be clear, if a-c adopts subversion, and there is no Eclipse
> client, I will -1 any j-c to a-c move.

Fair enough. Your vote is your vote. :) That said...

> CVS is the widely accepted standard - there really needs to be an
> absolutely compelling reason to change.

CVS sucks--from either a user or admin point of view.  I've used and
adminned CVS for years now, and every day I become more and more
frustrated with it. I could go on for hours about problems with it,
but here a few choice ones--all of which Subversion addresses.

 CVS shortcomings:
 - Directories aren't versioned
 - You can't rename or move directories properly
 - Commits are not atomic
 - Branching and tagging are O(n)
 - CVS' codebase is a brittle mess
 - CVS does not deal well with binary files
 - and on and on and on.

That said, I'm looking forward to Eclipse support for Subversion if
that will convince you to join in. 

-Fitz, a very biased Subversion developer. :)