I took a look at the Subversion site [1], and see three features which appear to be quite compelling. [[ Features of Subversion * Most current CVS features. Subversion is meant to be a better CVS, so it has most of CVS's features. Generally, Subversion's interface to a particular feature is similar to CVS's, except where there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. * Directories, renames, and file meta-data are versioned. Lack of these features is one of the most common complaints against CVS. Subversion versions not only file contents and file existence, but also directories, copies, and renames. It also allows arbitrary metadata ("properties") to be versioned along with any file or directory, and provides a mechanism for versioning the `execute' permission flag on files. * Apache network server option, with WebDAV/DeltaV protocol. Subversion can use the HTTP-based WebDAV/DeltaV protocol for network communications, and the Apache web server to provide repository-side network service. This gives Subversion an advantage over CVS in interoperability, and provides various key features for free: authentication, path-based authorization, wire compression, and basic repository browsing. ]] I've recently realized that directory moving and renaming is a pain with 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. The choice of staying close to CVS except where there's a reason not to will hopefully ameliorate the learning-curve concerns. Just a datum. #g -- [1] http://subversion.tigris.org/ ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact