William S Fulton wrote:
>> Upon further thought. Why don't we take this kind of slow at first.
>> I'd like to suggest the idea that we set up SVN as kind of a pilot
>> project, but continue to use CVS for awhile until people get a chance
>> to test SVN and make sure it works. Then, once we're satisfied with
>> that, we make the formal transition. Presumably, this approach will
>> require us to convert the CVS repository twice (since we're going to
>> keep working while this is going on). However, it doesn't sound like
>> that's going to be a problem. Thoughts?
> To be honest, I'd rather just get on with it. If it goes horribly wrong,
> and we'll know about it after just one or two commits, then we can just
> revert. We can make a test directory for testing stuff out on for those
> who want to find their feet with subversion. But by all accounts there
> ain't much radically different for the basics if you are used to cvs.
> Maybe those with experience of converting over to svn can let us know
> whether it went smoothly and easily or not.
Well, I use subversion every day, and it is great. I know the mono
project converted to svn in as little as a day (they have over 400
committers too!) The first time, they didn't pass the right options to
cvs2svn, but ran it again and had the svn up within the day. KDE
converted, and they have over 1000 committers. KDE took it a little
slower, though. Also, most of the problems/issues people like Mono, KDE
and such had is configuring and setting up the server. But sourceforge
has done all that work already: the server is set up, permissions for
everything is set up, the on disk format for the database is configured,
With as few committers as we have, maintaining two source controls will
just be too confusing and too much work. Olly suggested exporting
patches, but that doesn't work too well when you start moving files
around in the svn... then we have to go in manually and do it. We can
convert, and leave the cvs around if something really breaks.
On a basic level, subversion is exactly the same as CVS. svn update,
svn add, svn commit. Things like tagging and branching and merging are
slightly different (read: easier than CVS). The thing is, subversion
and cvs have exactly the same "philosophy", so converting mainly just
changing a few commands. It isn't like switching to something like git,
darcs, mercurial, or arch, which are branch based and require a
different way of thinking.
The one thing that, in my mind, makes it easier to convert is that
subversion has excellent documentation. Every single thing about
subversion is documented, the svnbook is easy to read, easy to reference.
Everyone should check out the following
Subversion has excellent documentation
and even has a section "Subversion for CVS Users"