Lan Barnes wrote:
Are you aware that SVN is designed to be a drop-in replacement for CVS?
Apparently not, because you appeal to ease of use.
SVN is *not* a drop in replacement. Even if I alias "cvs" to "svn",
things are different.
Let's talk about CVSROOT? How about scripts which rely on that? How
about URL's for access to the repo? What about the Windows clients?
They sure aren't drop in replacements. What about systems that use
ACL's for security and access?
I'm not arguing that CVS is better than SVN. Only an idiot would do that.
However, only an idiot would blindly upgrade without considering the
cost, either.
Personally, I am waiting for the first distributed system that Eclipse
supports. Mercurial, darcs, arch/Arx/tla (hopefully not) so that I can
dump CVS *and* SVN.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
