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

[Jan Rekorajski]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005, wrobell wrote:

> 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.

Really? How?
Example: http://svn.pld-linux.org/svn/rc-scripts
I want to keep only trunk, branches and _some_ tags, tell me how to do
it, and how to prevent svn up from getting all tags.

> > > 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_.

And the royal PITA, which svn is, is not worth it.

Janek
-- 
Jan Rękorajski            |  ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl   |  OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC              |                   -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio