Switching from CVS to Subversion: test svn repo available

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 07:09:36PM -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> 
> >         Alternatively, for another breed of SCMs the model is: the
> > repository is a project that has history, which happens to be
> > represented by files.  This distinction may (or may not?) seem subtle
> > but it is HUGE.  This is the whole concept of
> > changesets/patchsets/commits-whatever.  It lets the user view and
> > operate atomically on "changesets" that affect many files.  This is
> > *SO* useful, that once you're used to it, not being able to do it just
> > seems like wandering around in the dark with you hands tied behind
> > your back.  
> 
> I thought this was the main point of SVN, and the motivation for
> replacing CVS - that it has atomic changesets that affect many files.

Please see: http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#changesets

for a rather biased, but not unhelpful answer.  The frank answer is
that there's a *fundamental* *architectural* difference between
designs that use arrays of versioned trees and designs that use DAGs
of changesets.  I would dispute the "neither philosophy is better"
part.

FWIW, my take on the status of this debate is that it's basically
over.  The systems using changesets have proven far more useful, and
made the versioned-trees approach seem ... well... backward.

But, there are those who feel far more strongly, and are far better
informed than I, who make the case far better that I could.  I'd
suggest googling around and reading the rantings of some of the
designers of changeset-based systems, if you're interested in the
debate.

Here's a fun link to git's author's opinion on the matter:
http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0504/0594.html

I'm sure dredging LKML for BK flamefests would turn up similarly fun
stuff.

Have fun!

-chris