On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:41:29PM -0500, Gabriel Sechan wrote: > > > > >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. >
svn update svn ci > > > 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 I cannot argue the subjective validity of what you are saying. I've said the exact same things about other systems/SW. But really, give it a try some afternoon when you have nothing else to do. svn is really a worthwhile step away from mediocrity. -- Lan Barnes Linux Guy, SCM Specialist Tcl/Tk Enthusiast -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
