Tracy I don't anyone would disagree with you that SVN is *much* better designed and nicer to work with. The only defense of CVS I've heard so far is the sendmail defense... "It is everywhere and works so why change?".
cs On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:09PM -0700, Tracy R Reed wrote: > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > >Let's talk about CVSROOT? How about scripts which rely on that? > > CVSROOT is one of the reasons I went with svn. I can never remember how > to set it up. I avoid dealing with it and never ended up learning it. > That and the fact that every shop I have worked in felt the need to use > some sort of cvs wrapper to work around some deficiency in cvs. To use > cvs at my work you need to copy some stuff from some other user into > your own homedir. You can't just check it out of cvs because that is a > chicken and egg problem. I have not yet investigated what that stuff is, > we just did it and I try to avoid having to use it wherever possible. > SVN on the otherhand was much easier to set up and I understand it far > more easily. And I don't like how tagging/branching works in cvs. With > SVN everything is a heirarchy and if you want a branch you make a copy. > If you want to do the equivalent of tag some code you make a copy. It > just seems more generic and consistant. I view tagging and branching in > cvs as unnecessary special cases. > > -- > Tracy R Reed > http://ultraviolet.org > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
