[PD-dev] time for svn?

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Mon Feb 27 01:53:51 CET 2006

On Feb 26, 2006, at 6:29 AM, David Plans Casal wrote:

> On 26 Feb 2006, at 09:51, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>> Oh, and the tag called "HEAD" in CVS is
>>> usually a directory called "trunk" in SVN.
>> Let me rephrase this a bit, because it's not correct the way I said
>> it: When considering HEAD as a revision, then of course svn also  
>> has a
>> current, HEAD revision. What I actually meant to say was that the  
>> branch of CVS usually is a "trunk" directory (or many of them) in  
>> SVN.
> It's probably worth noting that there is a very good 'SVN for CVS  
> users' chapter in the red bean book, here:
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-book.html#svn.forcvs

Thanks, that's a good start.

But I must say, there is an arrogance to the documentation which I  
find distasteful.  I'd like to see the "advantages and disadvantages"  
section, rather than "forget all you know, because SVN is so much  
better".  That's a dangerous attitude, every system has  
disadvantages, and the developers should be aware of them.

For example, I am sure there are disadvantages to having per-commit  
versions rather than per-file like CVS.  I'd like to hear the  
discussion rather than having someone tell me "forget the other way,  
this way is better".  Here's a good paper comparing CVS and SVN:


Here's something from the GNU Arch wiki:


Here's a discussion from the gcc dev list about their switch:


I think they spell it out, basically branching and merging is better  
in SVN, the rest is largely the same in terms of efficiency.  I think  
we should be doing more branching and merging, so its sounds like SVN  
is the way.  I just want to make sure what we are getting into.



                   ¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list