On 06-04-2006 09:12:23 +0200, Niels Nes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 07:51:59AM +0200, p.a.boncz@chello.nl wrote:
No, if we can migrate the history..
history migrating is indeed posible. Subversion has as goal to be a better CVS and become a CVS replacement. Thats why migration from CVS to svn should be relatively pain free.
What bothers me of SVN is that the client appears to be deliberately less verbose than CVS's. It doesn't tell which files it doesn't know about, it doesn't tell what files are modified, and it doesn't tell there are conflicts (as far as I am aware). Also, SVN is EXTREMELY stupid when updating; if it encounters something it can't cope with (like an already existing file) it just terminates at that point, leaving you with a partially updated tree, giving you the same problems more or less as when a cp fails somewhere in the middle. CVS would just continue and produce a warning like "Move X: it is in the way". All in all, the SVN client tool just feels like being a lot more clumpsy than CVS's client tool to me. Shouldn't be a show stopper though, as we will win for "svn diff" performance a lot (they are done using local files, not contacting the server), and finally being able to rename and move whole branches while retaining history. Once converted, the CVS repo will not be updated by changes in the SVN repo. I think that's fairly important to know.