Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
| От | David Garamond | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4061E556.409@zara.6.isreserved.com обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) (Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
Frank Wiles wrote: >>Why? not that I'm for a chance from something that isn't broken, but >>what advantages does subversion give us over what we already have? > > Subversion has lots of "little" benefits, but nothing that would be > a major incentive to switch. The biggest benefits I can think of > of the top of my head are: > > * Commits are actually atomic > * protocol sends diffs in both directions which speeds up everything > * branching and tagging are cheap constant time operations > * the time it takes to make changes is based on the size of the > change, not the size of the project > * whole directories are versioned not just files. So for example > if you for some reason wanted to rename src/backend/bootstrap.c > to src/backend/bootup.c you wouldn't lose your revision history > information. Same thing goes for complete reorganizations of the > file layouts. Actually, the things you mentioned are pretty "major", as most of the above are really broken/painful to do/very slow in CVS. But, all of those probably will not motivate a seasoned CVS user enough to migrate. So one might ask, what *will* motivate a die-hard CVS user? A real-close Bitkeeper clone? :-) -- dave
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: