On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 05:10:27PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:05:38AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > > Indeed. Moreover, the only advantage of svn seems to be that to an > > > end-user, it looks very similar as cvs. > > > > It also supports symbolic links, proper file/directory renaming, etc. > > All in all, svn is way better than cvs for almost everything. > > None of this features is used or needed AFAIK for the WWW repository. Losing > all the CVS history and having to update all the tools for no real gain seems
The history will *not* be lost! cvs2svn keeps it. But I read about a little problem with properties which could causes problems with a Windows client. PS: Properties are also a usefil feature. We could associate to each file a property "license" which may contain an arbitrarily string, or "comment", ... Also it easier to do a backup of the repository. It should no longer require admin rights IIRC. > like a major drawback to me. OK but let's not forget that SVN keeps a local copy of the checkouted files which allows diffs without internet connection. Also a commit is faster as only changes are transfered. Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
