Giovanni Bajo wrote: >I'll add others: > >4) Uniquely identification of a tree with a single number. "In my pristine >tree, revision 567890, I see this bug". That's unique. >5) Much much faster management of working copies: "svn diff" / "svn status" >do not require server connection. "what's up in my tree" and "what did I >change" can be answered in milliseconds. >6) Much easier reversion of patches for testing purposes, since you can >easily extract and revert an atomic changeset. >7) Much easier generation of proper diffs to send mail to the lists, since >you can "svn add" and "svn delete" without write access to the repository. >8) Fast switch of working copies from a branch to another, *maintaining* the >local changes. This is very handy. >9) Much easier backport of patches to release branches: "svn >merge -r123456", which also correctly remove/add/rename files as needed. >10) Getting rid forever of the problem with DOS newlines in source files. > >I would also notice that most people don't RTFM. I spent many efforts in >writing the Wiki page, and the benefits of SVN are apparent if you spend >some time reading it and studying the thing a little. To make things better, >something *has* to change. You can't expect SVN to be *identical* to CVS, >but it's very very close. > > Agreed, many thanks both to you and Steven.
Only one request from me: before the switch takes place, can you make sure the instructions on the wiki are sufficiently complete and incorporate all the latest advices about performance and so on? I think this is an high priority and would even suggest delaying the switch if we don't have those docs ready. Thanks Paolo.
