First things first: Good job, and please take your time! You are absolutely right by saying that it is better to be save than sorry. I second that.
No to the (evil) discussion about CVS versus SVN.
I've used both. There is no comparison; you want svn. The only reason to use CVS is because you are entering or taking over a legacy system with management that does not want to change the status quo. If you are starting on a new project, it is virtually a logical impossibility to argue that CVS is better than Subversion.
If you google around, you should find plenty of comparisons, and rationales for using Subversion over CVS. Some of the advantages of Subversion over CVS:
* can move or rename files or directories cleanly * atomic commits * "cheap" copying and branching (*) * commits are changesets on the whole tree (not just histories on individual files) And yes, that is an advantage.
Having said all this, I recommend you also explore some of the distributed VCSs like Bazaar, Mercurial and git. I personally use Mercurial on all projects I need offline commits, and Subversion otherwise.
And finally: If you think the CVS support in eclipse is good, I assume you've never seen Subversive or Subclipse?
(*) From tortoisesvn.net : "Cheap copies are similar to hard links in Unix, which means that instead of making a complete copy in the repository, an internal link is created, pointing to a specific tree/revision. As a result branches and tags are very quick to create, and take up almost no extra space in the repository. "