Comparison of Subversion servers (VisualSVN, CollabNet, uberSVN, etc.)? [closed]

Question

I am helping my business unit set up a Subversion server, and I'm evaluating some options like VisualSVN Server, CollabNet Subversion Edge, and uberSVN.

I've tried the basic version of VisualSVN Server, and it seemed fairly decent. I also tried uberSVN, and quickly saw how frustrating it is that you can't batch-add existing repositories.

Has anyone written up a good point-by-point comparison between the various Subversion server products out there? I have yet to find anything nearly as epic and comprehensive as what the CI Feature Matrix has done for comparing continuous integration servers.

Can anyone summarize the differentiating features between the various Subversion servers? Or are they largely a matter of personal taste?

Answer 1

Disclaimer: I manage the SVN Edge project and am also a committer for the Apache Subversion project.

I think it is mainly a matter of taste.

All three are free, but only SVN Edge is open-source.

VisualSVN Server only runs on Windows servers, which is not an issue if that is what you want to use. Anyway, because it only runs on Windows it is arguably more tightly integrated.

SVN Edge and UberSVN provide a web browse interface, and VisualSVN Server provide a Microsoft Management Console add-in.

SVN Edge has a feature called "Discover Repositories" that automatically adds all the existing repositories you have. You just point it at the folder that contains your repositories. SVN Edge also has a REST API, so you can write scripts for doing things like adding repositories.

Keep in mind that all three of these mainly exist to help you configure and manage the server. The actual server that your users interact with is Apache + Subversion. So it does not really matter which way you go, it is all Subversion.