On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Jeff Sickel <j...@corpus-callosum.com> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Steve Simon wrote: > >> I am told that the company I work for have decided to move from >> CVS to SVN, so I have to follow. > > The logical choice--given Subversion was always intended as _the_ CVS > replacement.
A total idiotic choice. Svn is an abomination, only good thing about it is that it makes a great example of 'second system syndrome' and of precisely how not to design, build and develop software. I have trouble thinking about anything in svn that doesn't suck hugely. Having used both, I honestly think CVS is preferable to svn, at least CVS didn't corrupt your repo randomly, it could be ported to new platforms without being irrevocably driven to commit suicide, and I don't remember it being as ridiculously painfully slow as svn. In either case one is better off not using any version control system at all (or if you are lucky, kenfs, fossil, hg or git). uriel > >> Has anyone ported SVN to plan9 (I only need the client side), or >> alternatively is anyone using linuxemu to run the Linux binary? > > After spending way too many years of misspent youth trying to get SVN working > (well) on various platforms, I finally threw in the towel, picked a DVCS and > have never looked back. The breaking point was when I realized it was easier > to build Python from scratch on an OS from a company that uses three letters > way too often than it was to even get the basic portions of the Subversion > dependency tree in place. > > The problem with the DVCS route: most of the tools that allow working with > Subversion require the svn client, or at least the library. Your milage may > vary. > > All that said, getting subversion to build and work is a good test case for > APE. If nothing else, it is a great place for linuxemu... > > -jas > > >
