On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:54:24PM -0500, Gabriel Sechan wrote: > > > > >From: Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Oh, poop! CVS doesn't come close to "working." > > > >Can't archive directories, deletes and renames, links, or properly > >handle binaries. > > > >CVS is so broken it is technically inferior to RCS. > > > >Get yourself a real SCM tool and get your head out of the sand. > > > And the fact is, we didn't have to do any of those on that set of projects, > so CVS was just fine. And its extremely easy to set up/administer. > > In my day, I've used CVS, Perforce, Bitkeeper, ClearCase, and custom > solutions. I've even helped write a tool to synch files between CVS, > ClearCase, and the custom solution. If I had to order them for ease of > use, CVS goes straight to the top for single site small projects. There's > no reason to monkey around with anything else a large chunk of the time- > possibly the majority of the time. When you're doing a major project, or > when you stat to need features CVS doesn't have, then you can consider > moving to a new tool. > > Gabe
Are you aware that SVN is designed to be a drop-in replacement for CVS? Apparently not, because you appeal to ease of use. I've admined CVS in live shop (Solar Turbines, in fact), and found it to be a complete mess. It's not even client/server. No transactions, no roll-back ... ugly kludge of C and scripts. Again: - no binary handling - no file renames - no directory archiving - risible security No, defending CVS is like defending a Yugo because it gets you to Von's. Someday on a real trip it'll break down when you can't afford it to, and I'll laugh and point and ridicule you with obnoxious I-told-you-so's. -- Lan Barnes Linux Guy, SCM Specialist Tcl/Tk Enthusiast -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
