Subversion vs CVS [closed]
I've used both. There is no comparison; you want svn. The only reason to use CVS is because you are entering or taking over a legacy system with management that does not want to change the status quo. If you are starting on a new project, it is virtually a logical impossibility to argue that CVS is better than Subversion.
If you google around, you should find plenty of comparisons, and rationales for using Subversion over CVS. Some of the advantages of Subversion over CVS:
- can move or rename files or directories cleanly
- atomic commits
- "cheap" copying and branching
- commits are changesets on the whole tree (not just histories on individual files)
Having said all this, I recommend you also explore some of the distributed VCSs like Bazaar, Mercurial and git. I personally use git on all my projects.
Subversion has some substantial wins over CVS:
- good remote options http/https/svn vs pserver
- atomic commits
- ubiquitous tool support
- rename
- directory versioning
However it has serious shortcomings. The biggest by far is that Branches and Tags are not first class citizens in svn, they are just directories that adhere to a convention. In addition to losing some of the benefits of real branching and tagging (mentioned in other comments) the biggest problem it creates is that if makes it very easy to screw up.
Subversion's use of convention rather than configuration means that you need to think about your repositories structure in advance and ensure that everyone adheres to it. Else you create a world of hurt for future generations, let alone any tools that need to grok your repo.
Merging and mirroring were almost non-existent (well assistance for) pre 1.5. 1.5 has taken steps to address both of these, but there is still room for improvement. Merging in subversion is still way harder than it needs to be.
SVN over CVS is almost a no-brainer. However, you would be remiss not to at least consider what DVCS's have to offer (Git, Hg, Bzr) or if your budget allows there are commercial tools with excellent reputations (Accurev, Perforce).
Subversion is probably the right choice, but you must do your homework to get the best results. Start with the Red Book http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Although I would choose Subversion over CVS in most cases, you should know what you're missing with Subversion:
CVS sees tags and branches as different things; Subversion doesn't. This means that third-party tools built on top of Subversion (e.g. IDEs with source control integration) have a harder job knowing the difference. You usually have to do some special configuration to tell it where your tags and branches are, and you have to make sure that your users stick to a certain filesystem layout.
Subversion can't look at a file and tell you at what point someone created a branch or tag from it. Tools like CVSGraph can use this information to draw a tree of a file's history. To do that with Subversion, you'd need to search all the branch/tags directories, and I haven't seen any tools that do this well.
CVS has been around longer, and the third-party tools are more stable, in my experience.