Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>Subversion has some substantial wins over CVS:</p> <ol> <li>good remote options http/https/svn vs pserver</li> <li>atomic commits</li> <li>ubiquitous tool support</li> <li>rename</li> <li>directory versioning</li> </ol> <p>However it has serious shortcomings. The biggest by far is that Branches and Tags are not first class citizens in svn, they are just directories that adhere to a convention. In addition to losing some of the benefits of real branching and tagging (mentioned in other comments) the biggest problem it creates is that if makes it very easy to screw up. </p> <p>Subversion's use of convention rather than configuration means that you need to think about your repositories structure in advance and ensure that everyone adheres to it. Else you create a world of hurt for future generations, let alone any tools that need to grok your repo.</p> <p>Merging and mirroring were almost non-existent (well assistance for) pre 1.5. 1.5 has taken steps to address both of these, but there is still room for improvement. Merging in subversion is still way harder than it needs to be.</p> <p>SVN over CVS is almost a no-brainer. However, you would be remiss not to at least consider what DVCS's have to offer (Git, Hg, Bzr) or if your budget allows there are commercial tools with excellent reputations (Accurev, Perforce). </p> <p>Subversion is probably the right choice, but you must do your homework to get the best results. Start with the Red Book <a href="http://svnbook.red-bean.com/" rel="noreferrer">http://svnbook.red-bean.com/</a></p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload