OSDev.org

TomTom wrote:actually SVN doesn't know branches or tags. These are nothing but cheap copies of a directory (ie. a cheap copy of a specific revision of /trunk to ie. /tags/version-1.0). The advantage is that it's a very cheap operation as the files aren't actually copied but rather referenced, so that the file history doesn't get lost. Of course if you make changes to copied files/directories those changes don't affect the original source (which is basically the concept of branches).

That's kind of what I said TomTom...

*Whistles*

I love svn too but I recently switched from svn to bzr.

mostly because bzr requires not server daemon and I can push my repo to mega-tokyo with no overhead.

some of my projects I have bzr setup like svn, aka when I commit it sftp pushes directly to my server.

some other projects I have it do local commits and I only push my branch only when explicity pushed (rather than committed).

i just love that no server is required on my hosting side.

the workflow is much the same too.

Well, strictly speaking you don't need a server daemon running for SVN, either, if you do the Apache / WebDAV thing. Personally, I always shied away from trying any of the "distributed" stuff (bzr, arch, svk), as it felt much too oversized for the one-to-two-man projects I'm working on.

to me I use it as a form of backup as well as revision, so being off my local box is a boon as an offsite backup.

I used svn locally a lot before migrating it to devguard.com which was nice.

if my local box gets backed up or never crashed, Id still be on local svn..

Uh-huh... 100% ACK on the backup thing. I would have lost the PDCLib sources at least once already if it weren't for offsite backups.