From: Caleb Epstein (caleb.epstein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 08:53:28
On 4/26/05, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> So, it looks like the comparison page is either out-of-date, or incorrect.
I agree. My original point about CVSNT was that it supports "Merge
Points", which makes doing multiple merges between branches a lot less
painful than it is with CVS or even SVN.
I did some testing of CVSNT a week or so ago, and this is indeed a
nice feature, but I did encounter some instabilities in the tool. The
rename support seems especially buggy and even warns you when you use
"cvsnt rename: Warning: rename is still experimental and may not
behave as you would expect"
I was even able to get the client to dump core; not very confidence-inducing.
If you have a Windows-heavy user base and a legacy CVS environment,
CVSNT may be the right tool. However I don't think all of the added
authentication and other functionality is pertinent for Boost,
especially if the server-side will be running on a UNIX box.
I believe SVN has all of the features that make it a CVS killer. The
branch/merge semantics are a lot less cumbersome than with CVS,
particularly when you take into account all of the tagging required to
make CVS branch/merge manageable. When combined with a little bit of
procedure (e.g. noting where merges happen in your commit comments),
the lack of a history-sensitive merge is hardly a showstopper.
Presumably a future release of SVN will include this feature (it is a
medium-term goal on their roadmap) and then you won't even need to
worry about those merge-point comments.
I say full-speed ahead into SVN-land!
-- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk