Graham Klyne
I took a look at the Subversion site [1], and see three features which appear to be quite compelling.
IMHO, Subversion is definitely a better, easier-to-use, CVS.
I also think that support for an open standard protocol (WebDAV) is, in the longer term, a real win because it should mean greater client availability across different platforms.
If/when clients are updated to actually implement the protocol in a compatible fashion. Last I looked, there was some support in IE, but otherwise a distinct lack of alternative implementations.
The choice of staying close to CVS except where there's a reason not to will hopefully ameliorate the learning-curve concerns.
I don't think we should overplay this point. Revision control is, for most users, most of the time, a simple cycle of update, (conflict resolution), change, commit. Branching and merging of brances is complicated with CVS/SVN-type of revision control, but I don't think that's a compelling argument for not changing to something that makes it easier :-)
Just a datum.
Just an opinion. -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants