Was [RE: [boost] Moving from CVS to Subversion?] Now is "Subversion experiences from the field"

From: Brian Braatz (brianb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-02 17:48:26

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Walter Landry
> Subject: Re: [boost] Moving from CVS to Subversion?
> 
> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > I am just posting this here to alert those who look at subject lines
> > to what we're discussing.  To review the whole discussion, see
> > http://news.gmane.org/find-
> root.php?message_id=%3cuk6pujjyu.fsf%40boost%2dconsulting.com%3e
> 
> One thread you might find interesting
> 
>   http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.comp.version-
> control.subversion.devel&article=53583
> 
> It talks about the troubles Mono had in going from CVS to Subversion.
> YMMV.
> 
> My personal opinion is that, if you want a centralized version control
> system, you aren't going to do significantly better than Subversion.
> There are a fair number of large projects using it, and, especially
> with the new fsfs backend, it seems to work pretty well for most
> people.
[Brian Braatz] 
I am currently running cvs and subversion side by side and wanted to
share my experiences:

We have been running CVS for 4 years and SVN for about 2

CVS
****
        We have about 50 people hitting one server
        CVS seems to handle this nicely
        We are using cvs for 2 projects
        Cvs add not being recursive is a pain in the butt.
                I am several states away from the cvs server
                I am currently STILL adding boost 1.32 to a repository 
                        I started this last Friday
                        On the SVN repository, this took a few hours
(same net connection)
                        Also the recursive "svn add" command meant I did
not have to baby sit it

SVN (Subversion)
****************
        Svn add is recursive
        Most of the SVN commands are very similar to cvs
        Seems significantly faster than cvs
        We had ONE instance in 2 years where we lost data- 
                IT guys never figured out what it was- 
                        might have been a power surge
                        or SVN we don't know
                We have never lost data on the cvs server
        We are only running about 5 guys against our svn box
        You can move files and retain history
                Retrieving files FROM history is not as simple as cvs
        It uses the berkely db backend
                Which I am not familiar with nor are my people experts
in it
        I can "svn add" while on an airplane, but I have to be online to
"svn commit"
        It has transactional commits- 
                Which means if something bombs halfway through a commit-
                        NONE of the files are added
                        We have been bit by this one on CVS in our
projects

My Opinion:
        I like SVN, but we have not completely switched over to it
        For Boost, the redundant servers from sourceforge is a
compelling reason to stay cvs. I am not aware if you can get the same
thing from sourceforge with svn.
        Svn does not however tax the server as much as cvs, hence there
is more client side processing

Anyone else have any experience with these two side by side they wish to
share?