Antw: Re: [Bf-committers] Subversion <-> CVS
Fri, 7 May 2004 9:17:34 +0200
> Stay with CVS, don't want to learn anything else again. It works and is
> fast that is good enough...
Hrm, I feel the same discussion starting all over again as it happened with SCons and autoconf.
I don't mind what we end up using, as long as there are good arguments for using it.
CVS has had its time, it's no longer actively developed as most of its developers have started on the successor: Subversion.
That system has (almost) all of the features CVS has plus a lot more.
Now, consider this: If Subversion would still be named cvs, would you then consider moving to the new version?
The command syntax is almost the same; just replace 'cvs' with 'svn' and you're ready to go. How hard
can it be to learn this?
On irc we've had many times where we said "I wish we had Subversion for this situation". So, this means that cvs
can't do the work we want it to do. For a user, not much will change. Installing Subversion is as easy as
installing cvs. Using Subversion is as easy as cvs; some new commands will need to be learned, that's all.
Maintaining a Subversion repository is something that I'm not familiar with. So I can't and won't comment
I may have been a bit emotional in the above reply, but I try to give decent arguments. Do you buy a car and
drive it for the rest of your life, or do you buy a new car once in a while because the newer car has features
more to your liking? I guess not, because you're used to your old car and it works. Well, I doubt that's the