Comparison between svk

Back to main page

SCM feature:	svk	Add to comparison: +CVS +AccuRev +Aegis +AllChange +Arch +Bazaar +BitKeeper +ClearCase +CM+ +CMSynergy +Co-Op +Darcs +Git +LibreSource Synchronizer +Mercurial +Monotone +OpenCM +Perforce +PureCM +SourceAnywhere +Subversion +Superversion +Surround SCM +Team Foundation Server +Vesta +Visual SourceSafe
Atomic Commits	Commits are atomic.
Files and Directories Moves or Renames	Yes. Renames are supported.
Intelligent Merging after Moves or Renames	No. Same as Subversion.
File and Directories Copies	Yes. Same as subversion.
Remote Repository Replication	Yes.
Propagating Changes to Parent Repositories	Yes.
Repository Permissions	Same as subversion.
Changesets' Support	Same as subversion.
Tracking Line-wise File History	Yes. (svk blame)
Ability to Work only on One Directory of the Repository	Yes.
Tracking Uncommited Changes	Yes. Using svk diff
Per-File Commit Messages	No. There is no such feature.
Documentation	Relatively poor, but improving. There's a work-in-progress book as well as the Wiki and some external Articles and Tutorials.
Ease of Deployment	In addition to installing subversion, users are required to install the subversion perl bindings and a few modules from CPAN.
Command Set	A CVS-like command set which is easy to get used to for CVS-users.
Networking Support	Very good. svk uses SVN::Mirror to retrieve remote repository. There has been plans to add VCP support to SVN::Mirror so it will be able to mirror from arbitary remote version control systems.
Portability	Good. Clients requires subversion and its perl bindings.
Web Interface	Yes. Same as Subversion.
Availability of Graphical User-Interfaces.	No GUIs are available.