> On the contrary. The reason I made the statement you quoted above is
> because we use CVS daily and sometimes quite extensively and know quite
> well that its basic design goals are most definitely correct and
> accurate.
There are a great many of us who use CVS daily, and find that
although the design goals are substantially correct, a revisiting of
them would greatly enhance the usability. This is similar to the
situation in the building. The Drummers experience no ill effects
from the openness of the building. The goals must reflect a balanace
between the needs of all the users.
> I.e. in this case it's the people who are renting the building that want
> to change it, not the owners who commissioned it in the first place and
> who make the most use out of it. Indeed the owners are directly opposed
> to the changes these occasional tennants want to make and will no longer
> be offering the building for their use.
What? You are an owner and I am merely a renter? Why is that?
Who has drawn that distinction?
We all equally own the code in an GPL licensed project, although
those who contribute code are more equal than others. Since CVS
has such ridiculous restrictions on who can check in code, the
"owners" have become an elite group that is hidebound,
unresponsive to the needs of the majority of users. That is one of
the reasons why development of CVS is so broken. I've given up on
helping develop CVS myself, and read this list only occasionally now.
