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

From: Brian Braatz (brianb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-03 00:26:07

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of David B. Held
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 3:50 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Was [RE: Moving from CVS to Subversion?] Now is
> "Subversion experiences from the field"
> 
> Brian Braatz wrote:
> > [...]
> > Anyone else have any experience with these two side by side they
>  > wish to share?
> 
> I've just started using SVN with some Java projects, and I have to
> say that the SVN integration with Eclipse is pretty good.  I've
> never used such intuitive version control anywhere.  There's a few
> complexities, like trying to merge changes between branches; but for
> the vast majority of tasks, it's a pleasure to work with.  That said,
> I don't know how painful it is to use SVN from the command line, but
> TortoiseSVN is about as easy to use from the filesystem as
> TortoiseCVS (if not more so).  The ability to store filesystem
> changes is a big win for SVN, IMO.  I just get the impression that
> the overall design of SVN is more elegant and robust, since it isn't
> a legacy system built up out of a series of hacks.  The two-way
> diff transfer is also very nice, and the way it handles binaries
> makes me confident storing binaries in a repository.  I only have
> a handful of developers hitting my server, but I haven't heard of
> any scalability problems from other SVN projects.
> 
> If it came to a vote, I'd say switch to SVN.
> 
> Dave
> 

[Brian Braatz] 
If boost goes SVN though, who runs the servers? Does sourceforge do
this?
We have had more admin with SVN than with CVS. (the Berkley db needs
tending to from time to time)