On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:42:14AM -0600, Danny Sauer wrote:
> As a couple of other people have said, Subversion is basically the
> "next" open CVS.  SVN is a little harder to set up initially, though
> it addresses some of the biggest problems with CVS (versioning of
> directories, renaming files, fine-grained authentication) and I like
> SVN's snapshot-like versioning better than CVS's file-based versioning
> scheme.  The automatic tagging of each release makes rolling back to
> old versions more useful, and using the Apache mod_svn method
> consolidates the SVN and Apache adminsitration locations (which I
> guess one would mostly just care about if one was the admin).  There's
> a TortoiseSVN which is every bit as nice as TortoiseCVS, BTW.
> http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/

Something that turned me off subversion, though I can't say I researched
it very thoughly, was that I've been told it really needs to have a
seperate repository for each project to work properly. In my case I
really would like to use the system I use in cvs, which is to have my
repository in my data directory and check out projects into that data
directory. This data directory then is synched to my server and work
computers. cvs is used in the file mode, no server.

Will subversion work in such a situation? I thought it needed an Apache
server to work, IE you can just set a random directory to be your
repository.

I use cvs for a lot of really small projects, as well as big ones, so a
subversion server would be overkill, though I like it's features a lot.
Kind of like the proprietary Perforce program I used a lot when I was a
programmer at one company.

-- 
pete@petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist