On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:40 +0200
Sven Panne
Don't get me wrong: I am quite aware of the limitations of CVS and I would *never* start a fresh project with CVS.
OK, so you agree that CVS has limitations.
But Subversion is a very worthy successor and being "the oldest" as you mentioned is a definite plus in the mission-critical area of version management systems.
Subversion only fixes the most obvious deficiencies of CVS, the lack of atomic commits and the inability to preserve history across rename events. However, there are other things that you would want to do in a revision control system. The main one is to set up branches and merge from branch to branch with as little human intervention as possible. SVN does not improve on CVS's rather poor across branch merging capabitilites where as others like Darcs and GNU Arch do. I haven't use Darcs, but I have been using GUN Arch for over 12 months and use branches for experimental work, sometimes as many as 10 branches on a single projects. Arch allows me to merge from branch to branch pretty mucu at will. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "Java, the best argument for Smalltalk since C++." -- Frank Winkler