avr-gcc-list
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] CVS or SVN ?!


From: David Brown
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] CVS or SVN ?!
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:41:35 +0200

I haven't yet installed a decent version control system here, but I'll be
doing so soon (as soon as I get time :-), and it will be Subversion.

There is virtually no reason to choose CVS over Subversion for a new
installation.  The only benifits of CVS over SVN are familiarity to existing
users and administrators (although SVN's command set is intentionally very
similar to CVS).

If you have a network with several users, install SVN on the server
(preferably linux/bsd) and access it with svn: or http: protocols.  If you
are not using a server, install it locally on your machine and use the file:
protocol.

SVN was designed from scratch to be cross-platform, and is happy on windows
or *nix.  CVS was designed for *nix, and has a slightly "foreign" feel on
windows.  I believe SVN is also better for local-hosted repositries than
CVS, but I haven't compared them that much.

Many, but not all, CVS and SVN utilities are available for both systems -
for example, on windows you definitely want svn-tortoise.  Older tools are
going to support CVS more, while new tools will support SVN.  If you think
of SVN as being a "next generation CVS", you'll not be far wrong.

Of course, there are a number of other versioning control systems available,
with different strengths and weaknesses.

mvh.,

David



----- Original Message -----
From: "Haase Bjoern (PT-BEU/EMT) *" <address@hidden>
To: "Vincent Trouilliez" <address@hidden>; "avr-gcc"
<address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: AW: [avr-gcc-list] CVS or SVN ?!


For CVS it is not essential to have a server. In case that you are having a
small working group that has access to some common and safe network
directory, you could use a repository that directly resides on the file
system.

For larger working groups, however, i'd not recommend this procedure.

Subversion seems to be better mainly for *really* large projects since it
seems to be more powerfull and more efficient when dealing with huge
repositories.
E.g. gcc itself possibly will switch from cvs to subversion one day since
working on branches with cvs seems to be quite slow.

In case that you are working on a WOE-XP or WOE-2000 machine, give
cvs-tortoise a try as an easy-to-use frontend.

Yours,

Bjoern



-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden Im
Auftrag von Vincent Trouilliez
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. September 2005 10:46
An: avr-gcc
Betreff: [avr-gcc-list] CVS or SVN ?!

Hi list,


I have been advised to use CVS when developing programs, but it seems
awkward to set up the server side. While asking around for help, I have
been suggested to give up CVS and use SVN, "subversion", instead, and
that it was meant to supplant CVS.

Now CVS seems difficult enough, so I don't fancy spending time on it,
only to have to change to something else soon after...

I would like your opinions on this... what do everyone use at work ?
Does it make any difference what system I use, as long as I use one !?
Say I find a job in this field, what would my boss be most likely to ask
me to use, CVS or SVN ? Or do the bosses not care, and the engineer can
use and setup whatever system he prefers or is familiar with ?


Thanks for sharing your thoughts, work experiences, whatever you see
fit :-)


Regards,


--
Vince



_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list





_______________________________________________
AVR-GCC-list mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]