From: Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Are you aware that SVN is designed to be a drop-in replacement for CVS?
Apparently not, because you appeal to ease of use.
It doesn't matter- everyone knows cvs update, cvs ci, etc.
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.
Perhaps, for a big project. For small projects I think its about 4 lines in
a file and 2-3 commands to get it up and running.
Again:
- no binary handling
- no file renames
- no directory archiving
- risible security
Again: Not needed for many, many projects. If you do need them, then go
with something else. That project didn't need them. My current home
project doesn't need them. The code I'm working on at work doesn't, but we
use the corporate SCM system anyway since the make system is built into it.
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.
And if I haven't gone further than Vons in the past 6 months, and have no
plans to anytime soon? I wouldn't ever use CVS for large scale distributed
development, but for smaller problems it gets the work done. You're
thinking on the scale you usually work at. Most projects are not at that
scale.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
