OSNews

@Donaldson:

"Hello,
From an industry perspective I would rather have the file layout of cvs.

Well from my industry perspective I would rather have the berkley DB. Because it's a DB, subversion is *FAR* more efficient and faster than the average traditional filesystem based VCS systems.

[quote]I know from personal experience about DB and source control and it was just bad. The product was continus and It used informix. Well there was no direct support for manageing the DB. In fact the vendor and "local experts" said there was no reason to "worry about" the database. 3 days later the drive filed up by a developer and a runaway and the databse crashed."[/i]

The difference is, they probably used a proprietary database. Subversion does not. Subversion provides an easy way to dump the contents of the database for "replay" later. Provides administrative tools to recover the databsae, and additionally since it's a berkley database the tools needed to manipulate it or extract data (including subversion itself) are completely open source.

So, *if* for whatever reason you did have a problem:

1) Being in an "industry" or "professional" environment, you're going to have a backup of some kind of the (relatively small, most SVN db's are a few hundred MB or less) database

2) It's very easy to restore or rebuild a repository

So your arguments really don't hold water. Subversion has proven itself fairly reliable to host extremely large projects such as GtkRadiant (http://www.qeradiant.com/) which has gigabytes of data in it's code repositories

The company I work for has used it for the past year or so and we've had very few problems with it, and we've used it since it was in Alpha quality

I think the real problem is you're just afraid you've lost control without the good ole' comfort of CVS style source management. Get over it.