> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Using CVS to try to track changes to non-text files is a
> losing proposition,
> almost by definition.
>
Almost by definition, you lose the main reason for considering CVS.
This does not necessarily make it a losing proposition.
> CVS is quite literally less useful for tracking changes to non-text
> files than RCS alone can ever be.
>
Really?
Does RCS enable merging changes to non-text files?
Since it doesn't, what does it do better?
There are a lot of things CVS does better than RCS. CVS manages
concurrent development, branches, and works well by directory or
module rather than by file. By using non-text files, the concurrent
part goes out the window, and branches become less useful. The
rest of the advantages remain.
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
