Stewart Stremler wrote:
begin quoting George Geller as of Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 03:15:15PM +0000:
A simple question.
Is CVS considered "good enough" or do you advocate SVN, bitkeeper,
TLA, Merucruial or something else?
Given the current (and past) dicussions, that's practically a troll. :)
Very.
I already know how to use CVS and I don't really want to learn yet
another set of commands.
If you're just fooling around, and only using stock linux and MS
machines, you can use SVN. Similiar command and day-in-the-life
view as CVS, but it's New! And! Shiny!
Agreed. If you don't want to adjust your concepts about source control,
go with SVN. It tries to be user command compatible with CVS.
If you're not part of the All-the-world-is-Linux-and-MSWindows, nail
down just what it is that you're using, and see if SVN might work for
you given a particular level of effort. (I also wouldn't trust SVN for
anything significant, as it's still quite young and they started off
like M$ -- lots of features and hype, instead of a minimalist core.
But that's me. YMMV.)
I disagree about that. SVN may be young, but it's getting a *very*
heavy workout. Ever since SVN provided filesystem repositories in
addition to DB repositories, the complaints about instability have stopped.
No opinion on TLA or Mecurial, or Bitkeeper, etc.
TLA doesn't work on Windows. I like Mercurial. darcs is nice, too. No
opinion about git. If you are a major test-first freak, take a look at
aegis.
I will not use Bitkeeper because of the license and Larry McVoy.
I'd avoid SourceSafe and ClearCase, however.
SourceSafe is just broken. ClearCase generally requires a dedicated
repository admin.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
