If you feel this way, why are you bothering? CVS works just fine. > conclusion: subversion is Linux-oriented bloatware that purports > to improve on cvs. The improvements on cvs appear to be minimal, > the system cost is *stunning*. Its authors should have improved > cvs, not forked off something with a GUI and a bunch of goofy script
These seem to be pretty bold conclusions based on what appears to be just the software requirements. There are good and bad things about both CVS and subversion. Though it doesn't have any use to me, some people like subversion because of the different transports it supports (which probably adds significantly to the dependency list). One thing I happen to like about subversion is the fact that there is a version for the entire directory tree, not just individual files. > Of course, Linux purports > to improve on SYSV. (Do they have pty's yet??) Objection. Relevance, your honor? > (My first Unix PeeCee had a 40MB disk.) OK. I completely see your point, but this sounds an awful lot like my father-in-law complaining that cars today have a purchase price higher than the house that he bought 40 years ago. While you're waiting 15 years for your dependencies to download, why don't you take a look at the subversion red bean book here: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/ ? If there's nothing there that appeals to you, then save yourself the aggravation and stick with the devil you know. _______________________________________________ Openbsd-newbies mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.theapt.org/listinfo/openbsd-newbies
