Look, I am evaluating the alternative to use SVN instead of CVS as source repository, wich we are using since almost ever.
After my (maybe too) quick reading of SVN documentation, I personally do not find a “serious” reason to use SVN instead of CVS.
Certainly it has some advantages (flexibility, moving, adding, and deleting, atomicity, less BW over the network, metadata, keep track of directories structures, transparent working with differentes file types), but some things still worry to me: data storage is not transparent as a “,v” file is (what with the Murphys law?, repository backups maybe), branches and tagging are copies within the repository according to what I understood, and the storage capacity is not less important. Cached files locally in .svn could still be a problem rather than a solution in some cases.
Concerning to QNX use, QNX could act as CVS local server itself, I suppose it’s not posible under SVN so easily, isn’t it?
I read SVN is a “from the scratch” development based on CVS idea, thats sounds good, in the other hand CVS was from the beggining a wrap for RCS, and that sounds not soooo bad…
SVN documentation complains too much about CVS limitations. Ok, there are they. But we survived them during years without too much effort
Ok, I am still looking for the “GREAT”, “BIG” or at least “SIGNIFICANT” difference, that it means that the big effort to change really worth the pain.
QNX source code itself is under SVN it could be a good answer to my question, but maybe not. We have lot of development under CVS and now is time to make a new choice (or to reaffirm an old one).
Perhaps my lack of experience using SVN is the reason of my prejudices.
I will appreciate your own comments and experience on the matter
Thanks in advance!!