begin Mike Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 08:21:15AM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > > cvs remove thisI<tab> > > rm thisI<tab> > > > > rather than what cvs forces you to do: > > cvs rm -f thisI<tab> > > ...doesn't seem so hard. nice! not documented in the man page, and i don't remember seeing that in the coriolis cvs book. although, now that i check, i see it in the info page. thanks!
but even so, something as renaming a directory is an utter nightmare. even renaming a file is very inconvenient. > > i've always been impressed with linux's tendency to make things super > > convenient for programmers. but cvs runs counter to this. it's almost > > as if it was developed with no user input to the developers. > > CVS was developed by developers. Major weaknesses include handling of > directories, renaming of files, tracking permission bit across versions, > non-atomic commits, no concept of "change sets" (a changes to multiple > files are a single change), backout of single changesets, and handling > decentralized master archives. > > > i'm sure there are cvs replacements out there. i'm wondering if > > anybody has ever played around with one? make suggestions? > > I have heard of three alternatives that are non-commercial but have > not played with any of them extensively: > > - Subversion (is a group that forked CVS with the > intention to make it suck less) > - Arch (is a sh/ftp based system which supports distributed master > archives and some concept of change sets) > - Bitkeeper (has funky semi-commercial dual mode license, very powerful, > I'd be worried about the stability of the maintainer). i've heard of subversion and bitkeeper. i think bitkeeper is what linus torvalds uses for kernel development. but i was hoping to get some user feedback on the alternatives. for the next few months, i need to be more of a linux user rather than a linux tinkerer, if you get my drift. at least until my dissertation and book are done. > There are also a bunch of fully commercial packages... heh. ;) > I would investigate Arch and Subversion in that order... then > Bitkeeper... > > Let me know what you find, > Mike Simons ok - i'll invest a little time. before i do, why would you suggest arch before subversion? i would've thought the opposite order. thanks mike! pete -- Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
