Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
My company is using CVS as our de-facto standard for source control. However, I’ve heard a lot of people say that SVN is better.
I know SVN is newer, but other than that, I’m unfamiliar with its benefits.
What I’m looking for is a good, succinct comparison of the two systems, noting any advantages or disadvantages of each in a Java/Eclipse development environment.
CVS only tracks modification on a file-by-file basis, while SVN tracks a whole commit as a new revision, which means that it is easier to follow the history of your project. Add the fact that all modern source control software use the concept of revision so it is far easier to migrate from SVN than it is from CVS.
There is also the atomic commit problem. While I only encountered it once, it is possible that 2 people committing together in CVS can conflict each other, losing some data and putting your client in an inconsistent state. When detected early, these problems are not major because your data is still out there somewhere, but it can be a pain in a stressful environment.
And finally, not many tools are developed around CVS anymore. While the new and shiny-new tools like Git or Mercurial definitely lack tools yet, SVN has a pretty large application base on any system.
EDIT 2020: Seriously, this answer is 12 years old now. Forget SVN, go use Git like everyone else!