In addition, cvs does not do renames nicely nor does it allow files
to be easily moved from one directory to another. Its not uncommon
for me to rename files so that their fine name more closely matches
its content. I also put new files in a miscellaneous directory and
move them later to a directory of other files with the same subject
matter.
CVS doesn't do renames not does it track file moves. It keeps the same
file name in the same place. If you "move" a file you actually track
that in CVS by saying it was deleted in one place and added in another.
So it is still possible to move a file, but you leave a record of the
file in its original place as well as a creation date in the new place.
In certain environments that's important to know, for example in most
MIL-STD-973 (and later EIA 836) environments it's important to have it
done the CVS way. I can't configure subversion to handle file moves
the way that CVS does, so I have to use CVS for that.
For many other purposes, subversion may be better. However, I prefer
CVS because it suits what I do better than subversion does.
subversion suits the creators best, but it is not a better cvs, it's a
different cvs. It did not suit my paradigism. YMMV. cvs ensures the SAME
document in both places is called the same-name. subversion does not.
Since subversion does renames and file moves much better that cvs I
think its actually a better tool for this job than cvs. However itsI
still don't think its the right tool.
No, that's still "different" not "better". If it was better then it would
be better for everyone. It's not better for me, and it isn't better for
the original poster (James).
Neither are the right tool for controlling binary files, though, although
they will both still work. I don't know of anything that's open source that
does that well, although there are some expensive high-end CM packages that
will.
--
Del
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
