[Bioperl-l] First cut svn repository [was Re: SVN and ...Re: Perltidy]

[George Hartzell]

Hilmar Lapp writes:
 > [...]
 > IMHO, there's two advantages that svn has over cvs. First,  
 > directories are versioned, have properties, and generally are the  
 > same class of citizens as files. They can be added, renamed, and  
 > removed from the repository. In cvs, we all know what a hassle it is  
 > to rename or even retire directories. Second, svn log gives you the  
 > commits, i.e., the set of changes that constituted one particular  
 > commit (and therefore version increase). In cvs that's hard or  
 > impossible to reconstruct.

Two more:

  - svn groups changes into revisions, so that they can be considered
    together, CVS versions individual files.
  - subversion tracks renames/moves correctly,
  - subversion commits are atomic, so you never have to worry about
    all of your stuff making it into the repos. at the same time [if
    you've never had to un-muck this, count yourself blessed!] ,
  - svk, which allows disconnected development while still commiting
    your work to a repo at natural points along the way (you can
    revert, branch, etc.... to your hearts content).

[yeah, that's 3, err, 4. Math is hard.]

g.