4 ms·
> He says in this article that SVN is still better than CVS. He says SVN is better, but is more fragile (which for source control, I interpret as being worse):
by nearestneighbor 16y ago
> He says in this article that SVN is still better than CVS.
He says SVN is better, but is more fragile (which for source control, I interpret as being worse):
SVN fixes (supposedly) those "implementation
suckiness" issues. ...
I think it's also a much more fragile setup and
there's apparently been people who lost their
entire database to corruption
Even if SVN = CVS, clearly Tarballs > SVN, according to him. His actual quote was Tarballs >> CVS. I can dig it up if you can't.
- wvenable 16y agoThousands of companies (and millions of developers) use Subversion. It's 10 year old. It's an Apache project now. It's solid. It's a simple and easy to use tool that will make your life better. That's all. If you find that personally offensive, so be it.
- nearestneighbor 16y agoWhy do you say that I find this personally offensive?! You are not making a lot of sense. I'm just quoting Linus who probably had more experience with various VCSs than any of us.
- koenigdavidmj 16y agoLinus was more ranting that Subversion uses a binary database. If it gets corrupted, you're screwed. CVS's database is just RCS files, plus a little. Nice and easy to restore if Bad Things start to occur.
- wvenable 16y agoSubversion now use text files for storage too. You have the option of that or the Berkley DB.