cvs vs svn... (Re: SOURCES: ghostscript-afpl-am.patch (NEW), ghostscript-afpl-ijs_pkg...)

[wrobell]

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005, wrobell wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 18:46 +0200, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 05:32:50PM +0100, wrobell wrote:
> > > > let's start new war...
> > > > 
> > > > what about moving repo to svn?
> > > 
> > > Any reasons? SVN sucks a big one.
> > 
> > svn diff without performing connection to remote server.
> 
> At the cost of keeping ALL tags/branches locally. You're joking.
> 
> [baggins at sith rpm]$ du -hs SOURCES SPECS 
> 959M    SOURCES
> 63M     SPECS

you do _not_ have to keep _all_ tags/branches locally.

> > i think that cvs really sucks. so... any alternatives?
> 
> There is nothing better :/

with cvs we are loosing some information (i.e. deleted branches
and tags). svn allows us to track it _easily_.

  wrobell <wrobell at pld-linux.org>