What is Digg?14 Comments
- slartibartphast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's not that great, not much to offer over cvs really, and no true branching. you really only copy things and it doesn't keep track of branch and merge points, you must manually put in rev numbers often. No labels or symbolic names for rev numbers either.
The biggest problem with svn is the merge sucks! It constantly indicates conflicts where there are none, or merges badly. I'm stuck with it for now but I would go back to cvs if I could. - joshpeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0w00t subversion! Been usin it for a while, its great.
- mholtzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0svn is alright, i have been using cvs for about 5 years, svn for 9 months. I dont know if svn is mature enough for people to make the switch. I find transactions such as commits very slow compared to cvs.
- scottbrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Subversion is awesome. Fixes a lot of the problems with CVS, such as moving the files around and atomicity of the commits. I highly recommend this to anyone willing to step away from CVS...I know it can be hard.
- Rhomboid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A lot of the early problems with subversion were tied to the fact that the whole repository consisted of a single DBM (binary) database file. If it got corrupted, the whole thing was useless (or had to be hand recovered.) Unix nerds lambasted Microsoft for years for the registry and now everyone gushes over SVN for doing the exact same thing.
Now, it is possible to not use the DBM backend. There is one that uses the stock filesystem. But it's not as mature, and not the default. - hexreigns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0SVN is great. Unfortunately it doesn't work with mod_auth_mysql in Apache. And it is a pain in the ass to use htpasswd for over 40 users.
- scottbrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0slart: svn has true branching, its just that their technique for branching and tagging is based on directories, not entries into some cryptic file. most of what you've said is wrong so i'd suggest that you go find a good svn book and learn about it before knocking it.
I suggest "Pragmatic Version Control Using Subversion". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, we went BACK to CVS.
With CVS you can easily promote a single file to a different tag... because the version is tracked on each file, wheras SVC puts the version number on the WHOLE repository. You would think that would be cool, but it actually creates as many problems as it solves.
With CVS, I can have a TAG called "PRODUCTION" that consists of a set of files all with different versions...and if I work on a particular file, I can then promote that new version of JUST that file into "PRODUCTION" to replace the previous file, whereas no of the others change. There is no way to do this with SVN, it just has a lame branching scheme that only works as doing branches of the WHOLE repository at a time. SVN is nice, but its not "perfect" and it can't do everything that CVS can. CVS is nice, but its not "perfect" and it can't do everything that SVN can. I am sill waiting for the perfect vcs to appear, still have not found it, but for now if you have any sort of promotion model and try to maintain some sort of configuration management scheme, the benifits of SVN do not outweigh the problems and limitations of its design. - slartibartphast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0scott, you can think that but I know the philosophy of how it works and I just don't find it enough. A copy of a directory isn't a branch, it's just a copy, and isn't tracked in any way. I don't count commenting as a good way to track.
I use svn's "branching" by making these copies, but it's still a copy. There is no way to tell that a base file has branched and returned back to the trunk or even what file in the branch really matches it. A very poor substitute for real branches.
All that I've said is correct because I've had it running for quite a while now and that's the way it works. Put the book away and use it and you'll hit the limitations, and bugs. - Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't forget to add:
BrowserMatch "^SVN" redirect-carefully
to your Apache2 config if you get propfind errors. - bnolsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For some reason I really really like the idea of having the source code repository in text files. Makes it easy to jack directly with the repository if you really must.
For that reason I'd prefer some super cvs. - Logik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
free subversion book. - BlueBoiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Subversion is better with the Repository format FSFS
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0subversion looks cool. Git looks cooler.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is