On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 20:38 +1000, Damian S wrote: > > There is no "better". There is "different". > Exactly. > I happily use SVN on my projects which only I commit to. Although I am > the only committer, this code needs to be pushed out to multiple > machines, both public and private. > I'll still use SVN if I get several other collaborators, but once there > are more than 3 or 4 people committing, I'll move to git which uses a > superior model for large numbers of committers. 3 or 4 people are not many, it's "sightly above 1" :) It's an amount of users any VCS should be able to handle. > FWIW, SVN was not designed to be the 'best'. > It was meant to be a better CVS than CVS, and in that goal, succeeded. A matter of perspective. >From my point of view, on the client side, the only real advantage that SVN has over CVS is it allowing renaming files and it being less demanding on very low bandwidth or very poor connections to the server. SVN's major "con" is it being comparatively generous on local diskspace and it polluting a checked out source trees with huge amount of VCS-metadata files (git, mercurial do so as well). Ralf -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
