Re: subversion?

Raymond Toy <toy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>     Perry> By the way, as long as the CVS stuff has to get set up again afresh
>     Perry> anyway, any thoughts of converting things over to Subversion 
> instead?
>     Perry> (See subversion.tigris.org for info on subversion...)
>
> Subversion seems pretty neat in adding the things that CVS sorely
> needs.
>
> However, it seems that typical CMUCL usage of CVS is pretty much
> straight-line on the main branch with very few other branches.  So the
> advantages of subversion would not be seen?

Well, part of the reason for not branching may be that CVS makes
branches really inconvenient. Being able to do branches and
re-integrate easily is a very pleasant feature. BTW, cheap tags are
also pleasant...

> What would using subversion buy a typical user that CVS doesn't
> provide? 

Everything that annoys a typical CVS user is fixed. You can move
files, rename them, duplicate them, and what you've done is understood
by the version control system. You can do a diff of your changes
against the base sources without even going off to the
server. It has a thousand little features that are nice, too, like
being able to check out text files with crlfs on windows and lfs only
on unix.

> who would be very disappointed if pcl-cvs for xemacs no longer worked
> or there were no equivalent for subversion. :-)

There is a source control mode for svn for emacs. It comes with svn,
and I suspect it will be in most of the emacs distributions
eventually.

Perry