SVN over CVS?

[threeiem]

I have been working with the SquirrelMail project quit a bit recently and they've just switched to SVN (subversion) http://svnbook.red-bean.com/. I really like and was wondering if there was any talk about that switch here?

[Klors]

Yes, there has been plenty of talk...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23654&p=144518&hilit=svn#p144518

[Handyman]

Maybe phpBB should move to SVN?

Over my cold, dead body...

So, with that said, I don't think they will be moving to SVN.
Though, if I were building a project like this and I had it on CVS for so long, I wouldn't move to SVN until after Gold has been released.
Just one extra thing that you don't have to worry about. (personally I use and love SVN )

[bigon_be]

Gnome has just moved to svn

[Handyman]

Gnome has just moved to svn

A lot of projects are moving to SVN because it's becoming very popular and it's supposed to solve a lot of problems that CVS has.
I personally don't have a really good idea what those problems are... but SVN works pretty good

[theBlackDragon]

Gnome has just moved to svn

A lot of projects are moving to SVN because it's becoming very popular and it's supposed to solve a lot of problems that CVS has.
I personally don't have a really good idea what those problems are... but SVN works pretty good

The subversion site has a list of features on the main page which are all good reasons to ditch CVS for SVN. The main features I love about Subversion and that CVS lacks are:

• atomic commits
• access to the repository using WebDav (read: http(s))
• the ability to move files around without losing it's change history (in CVS you have to delete it first, then add it on the new location, you lose all history information on the file that way)
• ability to version symbolic links (not very useful for Windows users though)

Anyway, you'd have to be daft or bloody old fashioned (and imho people with such a 'static' attitude won't make good devs anyway) to start a new project still using CVS.

Subversion isn't the only CVS successor out there though, but it's by far the most widely used one.

[Acyd Burn]

atomic commits

Not absolutely sure about this, but we never had a need for it.

access to the repository using WebDav (read: http(s))

We do not need this.

the ability to move files around without losing it's change history (in CVS you have to delete it first, then add it on the new location, you lose all history information on the file that way)

This is definatly something useful and sometimes needed (as well as renaming) - though supported in newer CVS versions or supported by scripts which copy over the history files.

ability to version symbolic links (not very useful for Windows users though)

We do not need this.


As you can see, it is always a question of what is needed - quite the same with choosing the forum software fitting your needs.

Subversion isn't the only CVS successor out there though, but it's by far the most widely used one.

Indeed. For example darcs is way better than SVN if you just compare the abilities and features - but again, it is only a question of needs for the project.

[theBlackDragon]

atomic commits

Not absolutely sure about this, but we never had a need for it.

This allow you to commit changes to several files at once, under one version number, if you need to back out of the change you can do so in one action instead of having to revert all files individually.

access to the repository using WebDav (read: http(s))

We do not need this.

Nobody "needs" this, it's damn handy though when having to deal with routers and/or firewalls that you don't control.

the ability to move files around without losing it's change history (in CVS you have to delete it first, then add it on the new location, you lose all history information on the file that way)

This is definatly something useful and sometimes needed (as well as renaming) - though supported in newer CVS versions or supported by scripts which copy over the history files.

I guess we can both agree that using scripts is an ugly hack and still no substitute for "the real deal". No official CVS versions support this as it would break compatibility with other CVS clients, maybe some commercial ones do, I have no idea.

ability to version symbolic links (not very useful for Windows users though)

We do not need this.


As you can see, it is always a question of what is needed - quite the same with choosing the forum software fitting your needs.

Subversion isn't the only CVS successor out there though, but it's by far the most widely used one.

Indeed. For example darcs is way better than SVN if you just compare the abilities and features - but again, it is only a question of needs for the project.

Just wanted to note that I stated what I liked about SVN, not necessarily what would/could benefit phpBB development, although a lot of features are very handy for any project once you start using them.

Darcs is a distributed RCS, so not quite in the same leage as CVS or SVN, but I have to agree, darcs is pretty nice, albeit somewhat slow. While on the subject of distributed revision control systems I'd also like to point out Monotone, which was at one point considered by Linus Torvalds to replace BitKeeper for managing the kernel sources, but not used in the end because the performance (at that time) was not good enough for a project of that size.

Which makes me wonder if using distributed RCS would be of benefit to a project like phpBB...?

[Highway of Life]

In addition to already mentioned features of SVN, one other thing I really like is the ability to see when the contents of a folder were last updated, without the need to browse INSIDE the directories to find the individual file changes, you can just see it at a glance from the top level.
The Atomic feature is pretty nice, we've used it a few times, and it has saved some time.

But I would agree with Meik, I don't feel it is a big need for phpBB at this point.
CVS is fulfilling all of their needs, so it doesn't make much sense to switch now...

Maybe 2 years ago, but not now.