On y trouve une opinion interessante que je ne suis pas loin de partager : Opinion: I think the main reason why you would want to use Subversion is that it is an easy step from CVS. The development model (central repo, no locking, etc) is similar, and a developer experienced on CVS can be using Svn for basic operations in a matter of minutes. Subversion fixes a number of annoyances in CVS, including lack of renames and whole-tree commits, and is more pleasant to use than CVS. Svn is much less amibitious in scope than Arch, and missing major architectural features such as distributed branching. Subversion (as of 2003) is much better documented than Arch, which also makes the switch earlier.
So: Subversion is an easier step from CVS. But if you're going to switch, maybe you should just go all the way to Arch.
[^] # Re: Comparatif des systèmes de contrôle de version
Posté par jmfayard . En réponse à la dépêche Comparatif des systèmes de contrôle de version. Évalué à 3.
http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/SubVersionAndCvsComparison(...)
On y trouve une opinion interessante que je ne suis pas loin de partager :
Opinion: I think the main reason why you would want to use Subversion is that it is an easy step from CVS. The development model (central repo, no locking, etc) is similar, and a developer experienced on CVS can be using Svn for basic operations in a matter of minutes. Subversion fixes a number of annoyances in CVS, including lack of renames and whole-tree commits, and is more pleasant to use than CVS. Svn is much less amibitious in scope than Arch, and missing major architectural features such as distributed branching. Subversion (as of 2003) is much better documented than Arch, which also makes the switch earlier.
So: Subversion is an easier step from CVS. But if you're going to switch, maybe you should just go all the way to Arch.
Plus generalement, si vous vous interessez a arch, ce wiki est excellent et de loin la meilleure documentation pour l ́instant.
http://wiki.gnuarch.org/moin.cgi/FrontPage(...)