Bill Hacker wrote: > CVS has been the 'compromise' that is at least not harmful or overly > demanding.
CVS *is* harmful. I can't run a patch and work on a different issue myself - I'll mix both. Or I'll have to check out into another tree and lose the patch. > Rather than 'nag' - set up what you want and see who joins or lends a hand. It is really cumbersome to keep any repo synchronized, especially if you want to have a nice repo which reflects vendor branches correctly. Basically all manual CVS interference has to be dealt with either in the tool or manually. > If it adds enough value to enough people, bandwidth and storage will be > attracted to the solution. Bandwidth and storage isn't the issue. I can develop forever in my git repo, and nobody might ever notice. And it won't magically make the project switch from CVS. cheers simon
