Stephen R Phillips wrote:

> CVS as a consequence REQUIRES frequent (see DAILY) backup before
> allowing commits.  

I think every repository that is in daily use should be backed up daily, if
the data in it is any worth :)  But what makes you think that cvs
specifically requires that?

> SVN gives significant improvements over CVS with the added benefit of not
> giving the ability to NUKE an entire repository by one individual
> uploading changes.  

Can you please show an example of how an individual (I assume user, not
admin) can nuke an entire repository by uploading (I assume committing)
changes?

> It keeps track of revisions for each file (not just the whole committal
> etc.)

This is exactly what cvs(nt) does. What makes you think it doesn't?

> You will then need to pick through the pieces and try and make sense of
> it.  That is the only suggestion I can make.   As I said unfortunately
> CVS affords little protection when it comes to people making revisions,
> of them nuking the entire file set, and making the entire repository
> useless.  

Is this FUD or fact? 

FWIW, I run a cvsnt repository for many years, and I don't see how any of
this is possible with cvs(nt). There are some shortcomings in cvs that have
been solved in cvsnt (for example, any user who can commit revisions in a
cvs repository can also delete tags), but nothing of this makes any file
data disappear. (Unless, of course, you make all your users admins.) AFAIK,
svn doesn't have any detailed access control mechanisms either. 

Gerhard

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