Re: CVS for Cfengine (Was: Re: Bugzille for cfengine)

[Sven Mueller]

Matt Small wrote on 15/12/2004 07:02:
> I've had to deal and administer a few repositories, including CVS and
> Subversion (as well as some horrible, horrible commercial alternatives).
>
> Generally, I'd recommend CVS for any project looking to start with a source
> repository, for 2 main reasons:
>
>  - it's brain-dead simple; easy to use, easy to administrate, easy to recover
>         from errors, and many (most?) developers are familiar with it

(I would leave out the "simple" on your first argument ;-) "for" CVS, 
but anyhow:) SVN is easy to use, easy to administrate and (with the FSFS 
backend) easy to recover from errors. Many developers are familiar 
either with CVS or SVN, and SVN is easy to learn, especially for those 
familiar with any source control system (and even more so for those 
familiar with CVS). Repository access is usually much easier to set up 
(developer side) and straight forward than with CVS.

>  - it's easy to upgrade to anything else; every other tool (including svn) has
>         a tool to import a CVS repository

So this is a reason to use CVS instead of SVN? That you can later 
migrate to something sensible? Why not start with something sensible? 
Also, a tool to migrate from SVN to anything else should be fairly easy 
to write, too. And it would have the added bonus of being able to 
preserve information that is lost in CVS (like complete changesets 
instead of specific file changes).

I should add that I also administered both CVS and SVN repositories (and 
still do), but I really prefer SVN for various reasons.

cu,
sven