cvs vs. svn [ was Re: Testing changes in FAI ]

[Paul Lussier]

Jens Dreger <jens.dreger at physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 09:47:09AM +0200, Patrick Cornelißen wrote:
>> 
>> I'd recommend to switch to subversion. It's much better for stuff like
>> this. (There is also a conversion utility, which preserves the whole
>> history)
>
> We tested subversion and the repo was made unusable by a user hitting
> CTRL-C during checkout at the wrong time. We changed the backend from
> BDB to something else, which should "not have this problem so often".
> What the ... ?
>
> Initial checkout also takes much longer with svn. Installs only have
> initial checkouts, to this time matters. We might change to svn if it
> was faster than cvs.
>
> I renamed the RCS files of the scripts, this preserves the revision
> history. Good enough.

Subversion has been faster than CVS for some time now afaik.  You
probably implemented the FSFS back end, which among other things, is
supposed to allow for having your repo on an NFS file system.

I don't know too much about the FSFS back end, but I've heard it's
supposed to be much better and more stable than the bdb back end, and
I believe it's now the default for new repos.  I highly recommend
switching to svn.  I've been using it for my home directory since v.14
or something, and never lost data with it.
-- 
Seeya,
Paul