Subversion: Is the jump from CVS worth it?
Posted Mar 18, 2004 18:30 UTC (Thu) by vmole
In reply to: Subversion: Is the jump from CVS worth it?
Parent article: Subversion: Is the jump from CVS worth it?
- Windows support. My company's main product is Unix/Linux based, but we do
have Windows tools, and some of them share code/libraries with the Unix stuff. Even if they didn't, I can't afford the time/effort to deal with two tools.
- Familiarity. The transistion from CVS to Subversion is straightforward. The transistion to Arch is a bigger mental hurdle.
- For a company with a few products and a very small developer base, a centralized system can be an advantage: one thing to back up, not too many worries about significant work be kept on a local disk. Contrariwise, the advantages of a distributed system are less meaningful in this environment.
- [snide]The Subversion people know what their project/product is called.[/snide] The arch/larch/tla/whatever thing is rather offputting, at first glance it seems like several competing and/or obsolete lines of development. I can't afford to change our VC system every few weeks, and for a long time arch seemed a risky commitment. It appears to be a lot more coherent now, but It Would Be Nice if the toplevel of wiki.gnuarch.org had a clarification of what all the different names represent in a prominent position. (Yes, this is obviously a minor point. But you're kidding yourself if you think someone who doesn't follow arch development is going to find this sort of thing a negative when they're trying to figure out what to replace CVS with.)
to post comments)