[#3006] CVS repository — "Eugene Scripnik" <hoaz@...>

Hello.

21 messages 2004/06/16
[#3008] Re: CVS repository — ts <decoux@...> 2004/06/16

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <hoaz@gala.net> writes:

[#3009] Re: CVS repository — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2004/06/16

Hi!

[#3057] Ruby 1.8.2 to be released. — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Hi,

20 messages 2004/06/23

Re: CVS repository

From: Robert Church <rc@...>
Date: 2004-06-16 23:14:18 UTC
List: ruby-core #3026
Dave Thomas wrote:
> 
> On Jun 16, 2004, at 7:05, Sean E. Russell wrote:
> 
>> Subversion requires a lot
>> less maintenance than CVS
> 
> I'm interested in this statement (as the need to maintain the repository 
> is the reason I don't recommend SVN to clients right now. Am I wrong in 
> my belief that SVN requires more server-side maintenance that CVS?

I'm with Dave here. SVN requires more maintenance than CVS. SVN requires 
  an occasional 'svnadmin recover' when something gets wedged. CVS, 
having a stable and simple repository format, simply doesn't have this 
issue.

The worst I've seen is a 'cvs commit' failing, leaving dead lockfiles 
throughout the repository, but that only happens if the permissions 
aren't setup properly initially.

CVS can also be backed up by simply tarring the repository. SVN requires 
specialized tools for that.

I use and prefer SVN, but it *is* slightly more cumbersome to maintain. 
I often wish the developers had read Dave's book, the part about the 
potency of plain text in particular.

In This Thread