For my money, CVS has always sucked. Use subversion or RCS, depending on the level of sophistication you need.
Subversion is well worth learning and installing. As for web interfaces <sigh>, OK, if that's what you really want ... but svn also supports ssh, which I prefer. On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:47:59AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > > > On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:32 PM, Neil Schneider wrote: > > > > >In this vein I have set up RCS directories for most things I've > > >changed from CLI. I think it's probably a good idea, since we have > > >multiple people doing admin work and if you check in your changes, you > > >can also comment what you changed. It requires some discipline among > > >those doing the work, I added a reminder to MOTD and turned on motd in > > >sshd so everyone sees it when they login. > > > > I'd really rather this be in CVS instead of RCS (personally, I'd > > rather it were in arch or darcs, but I want to avoid the bikeshed). > > I've been interested in arch once sobversion hit the street. I am not a > fan of being forced into using apache2 just so i can gain access to my > repository (note I said my, not someone else's). > > > RCS is old enough and unused enough that people no longer consider > > the implications. > > Erm, not sure what you mean, other than failing to check in the file > after editing, and someone else having to break the lock. > > CVS has a different problem: merging conflicting changes. > > Either way, the person doing the editing has to be paying attention. > > > CVS is the common case, so things like Apache, PHP, mod_**** all try > > to eject warning messages when you do something like share your > > source directory or CVS directory by accident using the web server. > > I think Neil was talking about RCS for /etc. > > > In addition, practically every editor on the planet now has CVS > > bindings so people don't have to remember the subtleties involved in > > not screwing up the repository. Also, CVS pulls require fewer locks > > than RCS > > > > Storing this stuff on a local partition with CVS avoids all the > > pserver headache. Placing it in a central repository allows someone > > to pull an archive by copying just the CVS directory (this makes > > migration a *lot* simpler). > > We did breifly talk about putting /etc on CVS. Stewart said he might be > roped into doing it. I'm certainly not against putting /etc into CVS > (considering I'mthe one that brought it up last night!) but I myself > have never done it. > > Actually, I want to put a lot of things into CVS - like all my dotfiles, > and my ~/doc/ directory. > > -john > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer -- Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
