On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:03:10AM +1000, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I give a lightning a talk called "Subversion Lifetime Achievement Award", the
> premise of which is that if Subversion hadn't fixed the superficial flaws in
> CVS we never would have seen the fundamental flaws in the model. Distributed
> version control would not have taken off like it had if we were still
> struggling to make a branch. I propose it benefited from all the folks who
> happily and easily used "svn cp" and then found no sane way to merge back.
I have to ask what all those folks are doing wrong. The group I work in
at the BBC uses Subversion to manage two large projects with several
developers. Sure, we occasionally get conflicts, but that's the only
merge problem we have, and I don't see how any revision control system
could prevent them unless, like RCS, it prevents multiple people from
working on a file at the same time.
Perhaps this is a case where RCS's hatefulness is a Good Thing.
--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information
I remember when computers were frustrating because they did
exactly what you told them to. That seems kinda quaint now.
-- JD Baldwin, in the Monastery
