M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> I'd be happy if the CVS and SVN folks would settle their war so I don't
> need to learn both. :)
> 
> Seriously, though, I have two projects on RubyForge, one in CVS and the
> other in SVN. Don't ask me why; I don't know. The only one I use
> actively is the CVS one.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of either, but they're no-brainers to use for 
open source. Not with any other SCM could I just toss an offhand URL out 
and know that people would be able to handle everything. Really all I 
need to do to get someone involved is say "it's in SVN, here's the URL". 
Done and done. That's a huge advantage for getting folks involved.

And as slow as it is, the DAV-based SVN servers are just about the 
easiest ones to work with. Not only you can use non-SVN tools to pull 
files if necessary (i.e. mount as a folder if you wish) but you can poke 
around in an ordinary web browser. Unpleasant for day-to-day commits, 
but trivial to make source available to a wide audience.

-- 
Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer
Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com
Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec
headius / headius.com -- charles.nutter / sun.com