2000-04-05-12:01:13 John Porter:
> OTOH, saying CVS is in any way like Windows makes me want
> to avoid it...
I think that was the intent. Unfortunate, too; I think CVS is a
superb tool. It's not perfect, and it doesn't do everything there is
--- or try to. What's more, it's not especially user-friendly.
But I really like its balance of complexity -vs- functionality; I
like the way it exposes as much as you want of its underpinnings. By
sticking strictly to a directory heirarchy of RCS files, it may end
up with limitations that turn icko when you want to rename things
(although create and remove isn't an awful way of handling it). But
it retains lovely compatibility with other tools.
I find CVS a _really_ robust foundation onto which to layer other
tasks. I check every backup of my pocket computer (was an HP LX, is
now a Palm) into a CVS tree right after I take it, automatically
from the same script. I park a CVS tree in the scripted data flow
between staging and production webservers.
I think the implication that CVS is like Windows is pretty much pure
flame-bait.
In fact, if you were gonna claim that a version control system is
like Windows, wouldn't it make more sense to look for a proprietary
system, distributed in binary form only, whose innards are
undocumented and inaccessible?
-Bennett
PGP signature
