On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:19:14PM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: > I guess the whole problem is that *any* replacement for CVS is doomed to be > bound with same basic issues. I don't think that there's a need for another > version control system. There's a need for a software configuration > management tool
Some of us don't want configuration management. > CVS is good what it's good for No it's not. > it's just that if you're managing real-life projects, you do much more > than just version control. That's making unwarranted assumptions. Actually I'd like to avoid as much administration as possible. That means not having to wait for formal reviews, not having to open PRs before a fix can be accepted etc > If the consensus is that nobody needs anything more than version control, then > CVS is fine. It emphatically is not fine. > does move from a non-VCS environment to one with any VCS. Aegis is about 10 > years "old" right now, it's used to manage large development projects (not > only in software). We're not a large project and we don't need or want admin overhead. I do not believe that a lot of boondage and discipline will decrease the bug rate for us ... it's supposed to be fun, at least in part. john
