I didn't have much contact with CVS, but I used SVN quite a bit. Things I remember from these days:
* There was no separation between commit and push. How weird.
* "svn log" or "svn blame" would take ages, because it had to tal to the server.
* Well-run larger projects had branching guides, because the built-in commands didn't track enough meta data to do merges safely later on
* SVN made it trivial to checkout only a subdirectory of a bigger repository (which I still sometimes miss in git), so people often tracked different projects in separate directories of one repository.
The only thing I remember about CVS was that to clone something from CVS, you had to know some root directory (this presumably was the webroot), and sourceforge.net didn't show available webroots -- so there were tons of technically "open source" repositories that you still couldn't clone, because the webroot wasn't documented.
With cvs, specify just "." and it will checkout all the modules in the CVS repository. That would include CVSROOT which was the module containing hooks. But, yes it was sometimes annoying that the module name wasn't clearly documented.
* There was no separation between commit and push. How weird.
* "svn log" or "svn blame" would take ages, because it had to tal to the server.
* Well-run larger projects had branching guides, because the built-in commands didn't track enough meta data to do merges safely later on
* SVN made it trivial to checkout only a subdirectory of a bigger repository (which I still sometimes miss in git), so people often tracked different projects in separate directories of one repository.
The only thing I remember about CVS was that to clone something from CVS, you had to know some root directory (this presumably was the webroot), and sourceforge.net didn't show available webroots -- so there were tons of technically "open source" repositories that you still couldn't clone, because the webroot wasn't documented.