[geeklog-devel] Upgrade CVS to a distributed repository
geeklog at thehares.com
Wed Apr 16 07:12:16 EDT 2008
SVN & CVS both have Tortoise support (TortoiseCVS and TortoiseSVN) which are
both great and unobtrusive us windoze people. :)
I'd suggest we just stick with CVS since 99.9% of us only have permission to
fetch the code anyway.
SVN's terrible at managing merges between branches, but other than that,
it's quite nice.
From: geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net
[mailto:geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net] On Behalf Of Michael Jervis
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:55 PM
To: Geeklog Development
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] Upgrade CVS to a distributed repository
> To be honest I some times wish CVS did more, but when i look at other
> solutions i see bloat and complicated untested features that only work in
> crude command line only fashion with very little or poorly writen
> documentation. SVN looks promising as a replacement option due to its
> similarity to CVS and uptake by the community at large.
SVN is just a better version of CVS really. The windows clients are
more mature and much nicer than the CVS alternatives. The server runs
flawlessly. The features are slightly different but a bit "better"
than CVS. I've been using SVN extensively at work with a team of 60
for nearly 2 years now. Plus a lot of work using CVS outside of work.
I'd go with SVN anytime now.
geeklog-devel mailing list
geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
More information about the geeklog-devel