[cvsnt] CVSNT and Subversion

[Dan Pupek]

Well, I hope we don't have to endure too much more flaming. The fact is that
both products are amazing even when you neglect to mention the great
price....FREE!

Different features for different folks.... that's what I say. I've used CVS
then CVSNT for many years and the only reason I haven't explored subversion
is because CVSNT does all I (and my company) need. So, I say keep up the
good work, we're all lucky to have these guys (too many to mention) working
there butts off on both CVSNT and SVN to make our lives easier!

BTW: I would like to see a more definitive road map from March-Hare that
included tools for mirroring and merging of mixed SVN and CVSNT servers.
Seems like a crazy idea, right? So did many things in the past.


------------------------------------
Advanced Systems Technology, Inc
Dan Pupek
Lead Software Engineer
dan-pupek at dcmsnet.info
8130 Pitman Ave.
Pensacola, Florida 32534
tel: 850-475-4038
fax: 850-473-8387
mobile: 850-529-0055
------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org [mailto:cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org]On Behalf
Of John Peacock
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:05 AM
To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org
Subject: Re: [cvsnt] CVSNT and Subversion


Arthur Barrett wrote:
> Also with CVSNT you are using something that is actively developed and
> is stable, as opposed to SVN whose ability to corrupt its own repository
> (and not just the btree one) is well documented.

Whoa, you just stepped over the line from advocating your own product to
denigrating someone else's product.  To support such an outrageous
claim, you need to cite, specifically, where repository corruption has
happened (and by this I mean not due to disk failure).  There are
specific requirements of BDB (not btree) backend that can temporarily
block the repository, but unrecoverable corruption has not been seen in
a very long time (pre 1.0).

Unlike you, apparently, I read both Subversion's dev list and cvsnt's
list.  I am aware of both the strengths and limitations of each product.
  You would do well to temper any enthusiasm for CVSNT with
acknowledging that you are not an expert on the capabilities of Subversion.

CVS - has been around for many years and has serious limitations;

CVSNT - has been actively developed for fewer years and has admirably
dealt with many of those limitations, but there is still code that
hasn't been touched in years, that even the lead CVSNT developer doesn't
know what it does;

Subversion - has been written from the ground up in only the last few
years, based on a completely redesigned model; the original goal was to
be feature equivalent with CVS (*not* CVSNT), something that has already
been achieved (with 1.0); new features are being added with the same
cautious design standards as the original codebase.

> I had discussions previously with some of the folks at OpenTV, and they
> were also quite interested in repository replication.  That's another
> thing you can't do on SVN.  Repository replication is built into the
> core of CVSNT 2.5.03, and it will be extended in CVSNT 2.6 later this
> year.

Another thing you apparently know little about:

	http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/subversion/svnsync/

This is part of the current trunk development.  It is also trivial to
mirror Subversion repositories using SVK (which is a replacement client
written in Perl, and also automatically handles merges and other
features not present in the core Subversion).

I don't think CVSNT is so weak a competitor that you need to cut down
Subversion in order to build up CVSNT.  Stick to what you know - CVSNT's
many strengths - and leave Subversion's capabilities to someone who can
be a strong advocate for Subversion.  You do a disservice to CVSNT by
relying on misstatements.

John
_______________________________________________
cvsnt mailing list
cvsnt at cvsnt.org
http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt