Everyone likes the new source control system, which is important -- freedom of choice may be acceptable for editors, web browsers, and even operating systems, but a team really must agree to share a source control system. It's important to like the tools you use every day.

CVS was good but Subversion is better. As already mentioned, head-to-head, on the same hardware, CVS managed to beat Subversion on clean checkouts—but who said we had to use the same hardware? We invested in a powerful new computer to serve our powerful new source control system, so even clean checkouts are quicker. Routine operations on a working copy are much quicker.

Upgrading build scripts did indeed turn out to be simple.

Four clients are in active use (five if you count the command line client, svn, itself). I use the psvn Emacs integration, which is very similar to pcl-cvs. Subclipse, TortoiseSVN and kdesvn are also popular with Eclipse, Windows and KDE users respectively.

So, CVS to Subversion makes good sense, but do beware of pitfalls in the import procedure.