CVS vs SVN - I've really considered moving to SVN (Subversion) several times. Why?- It's up-to-date, latest with atomic commits, yada- It has great merging tools- It works with all many tools like bug trackers.The only thing that is stopping me is thatTAG

I've really considered moving to SVN (Subversion) several times. Why?
- It's up-to-date, latest with atomic commits, yada
- It has great merging tools
- It works with all many tools like bug trackers.

The only thing that is stopping me is that
TAGS = BRANCHES = COPIES

For Nuke Patched Core, each tag is just that, a tag property written on one individual file in the main trunk.
I can tag for different releases (Patched75, Patched76... phpNuke75, phpNuke76...) and I can see which tags are available. Once I make changes, I just bring the tags up to the current version. (Even add tags as necessary for those that weren't patched but now are)

This kind of system means I can essentially patch different versions in parallel. There are subtle changes between phpNuke versions, so I don't want to share the trunk between all of them.

When SVN tags something, it puts it into a tags folder. There is an ancestry relation, but I have to manually go and look for which tags are out there; find the tag folders and merge them individually. That's a lot of work.
Branches are also tags... they just go into the branches folder.
And all of these are just "cheap copies" of the actual trunk file. Once I edit the trunk, I have to spider through the different revision trees to determine where it needs to be updated.

In CVS, I view the tags and apply them in one step. Easy. And check out the tags for easy packaging by an automated system.
I don't know how I can set up SVN to work the way I want to easily. I know it supports some kind of properties per file, but all the easy shortcuts want a folder(tag/branch) path and a revision number.