|
|
Re: Using eclipse as CVS? [message #160598 is a reply to message #160561] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 21:54 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: asd.asd.com
Jeff Myers wrote:
> Eclipse provides an integrated CVS client. You'll need to have access to
> a CVS server to make use of CVS.
>
> - Jeff
Is the built-in CVS system in eclipse as good as subversion or GNUArch (what
are the major differences)?
I see no reason to use time on these two alternatives if the built-in CVS in
eclipse is superior to the other mentioned.
Johs
|
|
|
|
Re: Using eclipse as CVS? [message #160616 is a reply to message #160606] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 22:49 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: asd.asd.com
Jeff Myers wrote:
> Most people think subversion is better than cvs. I'm sure you can find
> feature comparisons between subversion and cvs on the subversion
> website.
But what about subversion vs eclipse built-in cvs?
|
|
|
Re: Using eclipse as CVS? [message #160729 is a reply to message #160616] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 13:39 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cburgess.progressrail.com
Johs32 wrote:
> Jeff Myers wrote:
>
>> Most people think subversion is better than cvs. I'm sure you can find
>> feature comparisons between subversion and cvs on the subversion
>> website.
>
> But what about subversion vs eclipse built-in cvs?
This is sounding like you're wanting a comparison of Subversion vs. CVS
as source code repository systems, and NOT asking which
_client-in-Eclipse_ is better. The answers so far have been about the
_clients-in-Eclipse_, and _not_ about the repository systems themselves.
Here's my take on the _systems_:
- Subversion was _specifically_ built to solve shortcomings of CVS,
while being very _similar_ to CVS as far as using the client;
- Subversion uses an underlying Berkeley DB, compared to CVS using a
flat-file system... to me that means Subversion is more susceptible to
file corruption risk.
- I've used CVS for five years and have always been happy with it...
I've never used Subversion but expect I'd be just as happy with it.
- In short, CVS is simpler to set up and maintain, and I've
encountered no compelling reason to not use it.
As far as the Eclipse clients for each repository system, the CVS client
is already built in to Eclipse, whereas you'd have to install the
Subclipse plugin to have a Subversion client. So, the path of least
resistance here is to go with CVS.
CRB
|
|
|
Re: Using eclipse as CVS? [message #160834 is a reply to message #160729] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 18:30 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: hendrik_maryns.despammed.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chuck Burgess schreef:
> Johs32 wrote:
>> Jeff Myers wrote:
>>
>>> Most people think subversion is better than cvs. I'm sure you can find
>>> feature comparisons between subversion and cvs on the subversion
>>> website.
>>
>> But what about subversion vs eclipse built-in cvs?
>
> This is sounding like you're wanting a comparison of Subversion vs. CVS
> as source code repository systems, and NOT asking which
> _client-in-Eclipse_ is better. The answers so far have been about the
> _clients-in-Eclipse_, and _not_ about the repository systems themselves.
>
> Here's my take on the _systems_:
> - Subversion was _specifically_ built to solve shortcomings of CVS,
> while being very _similar_ to CVS as far as using the client;
> - Subversion uses an underlying Berkeley DB, compared to CVS using a
> flat-file system... to me that means Subversion is more susceptible to
> file corruption risk.
There is the option to not use Berkeley, but ‘FSFS’: File System File
System, as they call it, since about a year.
> - I've used CVS for five years and have always been happy with it...
> I've never used Subversion but expect I'd be just as happy with it.
I’ve been using Subversion for about a year, and am very happy with it,
in combination with the Subclipse (subclipse.tigris.org) plugin for Eclipse.
I also use CVS for projects that I do not administrate myself, and am
just as happy with it. Read up on the Subversion website on reasons to
prefer Subversion over CVS.
> - In short, CVS is simpler to set up and maintain,
You didn’t give any proof of this. I would rather claim the converse.
Setting up a Subversion repository can be as easy as
svnadmin create /path/to/rep/
svn import /path/to/rep/
This is one of the advantages for small projects: svn can run on the
local filesystem, there is no need for a server process. In my
experience, both with svn and cvs, this last thing, i.e. setting up
server authentication etc. is the biggest PITA.
> and I've encountered
> no compelling reason to not use it.
>
> As far as the Eclipse clients for each repository system, the CVS client
> is already built in to Eclipse, whereas you'd have to install the
> Subclipse plugin to have a Subversion client. So, the path of least
> resistance here is to go with CVS.
True. I would add to this: Subclipse is VERY similar to the built-in
CVS support.
H.
- --
Hendrik Maryns
==================
http://aouw.org
Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEtpFIe+7xMGD3itQRAt+UAJ0eFe1oNBBAKZAAQGN6OS5j02fbgQCf QhiX
ZHvh5CfOyn2IgWnpTOnFZz0=
=S/cT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04587 seconds