On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Howard Siegel wrote: Switching source control control systems, especially if the old system is well entrenched, is a extremely(!) difficult(!) thing to do even if the new system is "similar" to the old. And if other parts of his group/company/etc depend on CVS and have no reason to switch, it may not even be possible for political reasons.
CVS is buggy, inadequate and prone to failure at inopportune times (as if there is a good time to fail). CVS can't do atomic commits, has horrible branch and merge behaviors, and doesn't scale particularly well.
If you are using CVS, you will lose data. You may not even know you lost it, but it is gone.
SVN really is a better CVS (as was the goal of the SVN project which, frankly, wasn't exactly a high bar to set). And migrating from CVS to SVN is not that hard; cvs2svn works quite well and preserves all the metadata. The biggest problem with migrating from CVS is dealing with corruption in the repository (and, in my experience, most CVS repositories *do* have corruption).
b.bum (Yes -- I speak from experience. I migrated ~dozen major projects with 10+ years of CVS history to SVN using cvs2svn. Every single repository -- many on different servers -- had corruption that was previously unidentified.)
|