Re: [tlug] [Reminder Annoucement] TLUG Technical Meeting 2005-11-12

[Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>]

On 11/11/05, Ian Wells <ijw@example.com> wrote:

> On 11/11/05, Zev Blut <zb@example.com> wrote:
> > -=-=-=- Announcement: 2005/11/12 TLUG Technical Meeting -=-=-=-=-
> >     Topics: 1) Subversion
> >             by Josh Glover
>
> I'd like to hear this talk but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make it
> this weekend.  However, if anyone would care to wind Josh up:
>
> 1. merging worse in SVN compared to CVS.  In particular, you have to find
> the correct ancestor svn revision to merge from, a process that is
> automatically best-guessed in CVS and is correct 99% of the time.

My method of merging may differ from yours; I always feed SVN the
revision numbers when I merge. I thought that this was the best way to
do things. Can you give a specific example of what you mean (i.e.
please write the exact commands you use to merge, and what
difficulties arise)?

>  2. When you want a diff to ignore the linebreak/formatting changes that
> some muppet committed: cvs diff -uBw just works, svn diff doesn't support
> the necessary options.

Luckily, Zev remembered enough details about this question at the
meeting, and I think I have your answer:

svn diff -x '-uBw' ...

Try it out and let me know if it works.

> I actually quite like the tool, but there are places where it has yet to
> catch CVS up.

I disagree based on what you have said so far, but if you can explain
the merging problem, I may be prepared to concede that point.

SVN is way ahead of CVS in so many ways: binary file handling,
revision-controlled directories, revision-controlled metadata, WebDAV
support, offline working capabilities... I really do not see why
anyone would use CVS these days unless they must for legacy reasons.
The question came up at the meeting, "If I am starting out with
revision control, should I pick CVS or SVN?" The answer, not just from
me, but from several others in the room, was overwhelmingly, "SVN!"

-Josh