Upgrade a CVS server to something else?

[tmetro-blu-5a1Jt6qxUNc at public.gmane.org (Tom Metro)]

Mark Woodward wrote:
> Subversion's stated goal was to be better than CVS, and that's a
> little short sighted IMHO.

That goal is about a decade old, so not surprising SVN doesn't come
across as flashy as some of the more modern VCSs.


> I think svn's lack of tagging makes it a deal breaker.

Someone else has addressed this. SVN provides some raw functionality by
which developers can implement tagging by convention. The big down side
to SVN tags is that the VCS doesn't prohibit you from turning a tag into
a branch - or in other words, making modifications to a tagged revision.
Doing so would generally be considered bad practice, however I've never
seen a developer violate the conventions in the 10 years I've been using
SVN.


> Is git any good?

Yes, it has probably the best architecture, and the performance to
handle projects the size of the Linux kernel. So many projects use it,
it is worth knowing.

However, I think it falls short on the UI and terminology side. It
imposes unnecessary burden and workflow on the developer.

Its rapid rise in popularity is crowding out the alternatives, even if
they might be more suitable for average projects. A VCS tends to be
impacted by "network effects" - people choose the tool that's popular
because that's what developers already know.


> What about Mercurial? Bazaar?

Bazaar looked better to me than Mercurial on paper. I've played around
with Bazaar a bit, but not enough to recommend for or against it. Bazaar
 can do pretty much anything git can do, just with a better UI, and
worse performance.

So if you're not working on projects the size of the Linux kernel, I
recommend getting a taste for git, then give Bazaar a spin, and pick
whichever feels more comfortable.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/