Upgrade a CVS server to something else?

[blu-Z8efaSeK1ezqlBn2x/YWAg at public.gmane.org (Edward Ned Harvey)]

> From: Kent Borg [mailto:kentborg-KwkGvOEf1og at public.gmane.org]
> 
> Just because I criticize Subversion, don't think I don't have any gripes
> about git.

I am sorry that I get tired of git activism.  Usually git people say svn is
junk for some reason, because Linus says so.  The truth of the matter is,
svn can do things that git simply can't do, and for the selected subset of
versioning that Linus does a lot of ... git is significantly faster and more
intuitive.

End result, for me, as a professional IT person recommending to users, which
versioning system they should use ...

The fundamental difference between git and svn is centralization versus
decentralization.

If you have a significant amount of unmergeable files, or if you require
file locking for any other reason, or centralization for any other reason,
you can't effectively use git or hg.  Use svn.

But if you have a large number of all-text files, such as the linux kernel,
and especially if you have large teams of geographically disparate
developers, such as the linux kernel, then use git or hg.  It's specifically
designed for this purpose.

Anything that doesn't clearly fit into one of these categories, you have to
simply understand the pros/cons of each, and make up your own mind.  And
possibly consider others, such as perforce or clearcase.