Mark Lynch wrote:
I think this was already mentioned on the list - but it could be better
to focus on subversion (SVN) instead of CVS.
The reason I say this is that having used CVS for about a year and
subversion for the last couple of weeks on multiple projects I'm getting
to really like subversion.
While I'm a keen observer of Subversion (and no doubt it will take over from CVS if the promise holds true), CVS still has a body of work out there that is hard to beat: client tools, server tools, documentation and know-how.
But ultimately the good thing about Subversion/CVS is that they both work with the same concurrent versioning model as opposed to the checkin/checkout model. Learning one prepares you for the other.
The big problem i think really exists in dev-teams' reluctance to see the true value in version control and decentralised development. Over 50% of the audience I talked to at MXDU for instance still develop on a single, shared, development server and presumably had no formal versioning systems in place.
Learning CVS/Subversion is the easy part :) Convincing people they should go to the trouble -- now that is where we need to work harder!
-- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/
--- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
