From: Spiro Trikaliotis (ml-cbmhackers_at_trikaliotis.net)
Date: 2007-01-11 18:23:51
Hello,
* On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 10:40:39AM +0200 Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> I'd consider using a revision control system even for private projects.
> Subversion <http://subversion.tigris.org/> is very nice, because the
> repository can be on a local filesystem (fsfs) or on an HTTP server.
CVS can operate on a local filesystem, too. ;) The http server is
"problematic", but IIRC, this is possible, too.
Anyway, I would never use it this way. ssh is the only remote access I
trust.
> If you choose FSFS, it's very nice for doing incremental backups
> (e.g., with rsync <http://rsync.samba.org/> to another hard disk or
> over the network), because commits never modify existing files (unlike
> earlier revision control systems, such as RCS and CVS).
rsync does a very good job sync'ing CVS repositories, too.
I don't advocate using CVS; I just want to point out that the arguments
above are not sufficient to prefer SVN over CVS, IMHO.
Personally, I do not like binary formats (as SVN uses it) very much, not
to speak about databases. ;) If something goes wrong (mostly user
error), if it is really needed, I can edit the CVS repository by hand -
I have done this more than once, especially when I started using CVS. A
CVS repository is nothing more than some RCS files in directories, and
the RCS file format is very good documented. With SVN, this is not
possible.
I have seen some SVN repository bailout, where everything was lost
(only the backup helped). This was with some 1.0.x version.
Additionally, you might want to read the ChangeLogs for SVN - they are
very interesting. :)
Regards,
Spiro.
--
Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://opencbm.sf.net/
http://www.trikaliotis.net/ http://www.viceteam.org/
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.