[Anasadi]

Chaosprime,

There's not much to describe. If a person knows CVS, they already know a great deal about SVN. Command-wise. Here's some brief examples -

CVS / SVN
---------------------------------
cvs checkout / svn checkout
cvs add foo.txt / svn add foo.txt
cvs update / svn update
cvs commit / svn commit
...

There weren't really downs to switching to svn, unless you count the upgrades to the OS and Apache, which should be done regularly anyway. It was merely a matter of allotting time.

On the other hand, with svn, we can now open up portions of our repository to the web (we may have been able to publish portions with cvs, I don't know, we didn't use that bit), create individualized checkouts for immortals, have the diffs between files mailed to us directly, and more. I believe we can do file locking, so no more than one person is working on a file at a time, but we haven't used it, and if two of us do happen to work on the same file and commit it without updating, svn will merge the changes (letting you know where these take place). Renaming and moving files in SVN is a bit easier than doing it in CVS. SVN also seems a little faster than CVS, but that's my experience, your mileage may vary.

I'm not saying CVS is bad - it isn't. Just SVN provides us more options. If I were given the choice, I would go with SVN.

Anasadi