I'm stunned to read this. When Adium switched from CVS to SVN it was an enormous improvement. Offline diffs (so I can make patches while traveling), transactions (so the repository is always in a consistent state), cheap branches (svn branches are copy-on-write, so O(1) to create), and per-commit revision numbers are all huge advantages. Integration with Trac is nice as well.
Sorry to have "stunned" you.
But you seem to be speaking largely from the standpoint of someone with commit access, while I (as I said right up front) was speaking from the end user point of view. But I guess macridah has to consider what he/she plans to do with the repository:
- is it just for personal use or for a small group only? if so, do any of the stated svn improvements matter from a practical point of view? (of course in this case I also have to point out that my "end user" point of view is pretty much irrelevant, since everyone will be maintaining code)
- how much time does he/she want to put into maintaining the system? CVS is built in with OS X, while SVN will have to be separately installed and maintained (not necessarily difficult, but definitely necessary). SVN does have the reputation for being more time-consuming for the admin.
- Conversely, if this is just for personal use (or for a small group) then it doesn't matter as much if it takes more time to set up and manage SVN vs CVS.