Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I have to admit I've thrown out CVS in favour of subversion. So much nicer to have version control over directories and renamings, atomic commits, only diffs over the wire, etc.

    Still technically alpha software, but it's been rock solid for me and I've now started using it with clients.

    (and, although I don't use it this way myself, there is something very cool about mounting a DAV subversion repository on your desktop and having a versioned file system :-)

    If you've not tried it play with it for a week. '
    • Maybe I'm just looking for perfection. I defentely was spoiled by trying bitkeeper. To me subversion looks like just a small improvment over CVS. File renames and similar things are cool but I definetely can live without them - I will not switch to subversion just because of them. What I really need, what really whould save my and co-workers time is robust support for distributed development and robust handling of branching and merging. Subversion is nowhere close to that.
      --

      Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/ [martynov.org])

      • I felt the same way, until somebody persuaded me to try it for a week. I now can't imagine going back to CVS unless forced. I really would give it a whirl - especially since you can now use the standalone svnserve server rather than having to muck around getting an Apache2 DAV server up and running.

        I have to admit I try and avoid branch/merge at all costs since I find the reintegration pain worse than the avoiding-branching pain - but I understand that isn't always possible. Personally I prefer subversion