[vox-tech] cvs questions - replacement

[Dave Peticolas]

--=-XiTQi1BmCUYq2gPqvopF
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 10:44, Mike Simons wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 08:21:15AM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> >    cvs remove thisI<tab>
> >    rm thisI<tab>
> >=20
> > rather than what cvs forces you to do:
>=20
> cvs rm -f thisI<tab>
>=20
>   ...doesn't seem so hard.

It's not too bad, but you can't delete directories
and there is no support for moving files/directories
except 'by hand'.


> > i've always been impressed with linux's tendency to make things super
> > convenient for programmers.   but cvs runs counter to this.  it's almos=
t
> > as if it was developed with no user input to the developers.
>=20
>   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.
>=20
> > i'm sure there are cvs replacements out there.   i'm wondering if
> > anybody has ever played around with one?   make suggestions?
>=20
>   I have heard of three alternatives that are non-commercial but have=20
> not played with any of them extensively:
>=20
> - Subversion (is a group that forked CVS with the=20
>               intention to make it suck less)

Are you sure about that? I thought Subversion was a totally
separate project that started from scratch. I think you may
be thinking about a different project that was posted to /.
the other day.


> - 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).
>=20
>   There are also a bunch of fully commercial packages...
>=20
>   I would investigate Arch and Subversion in that order... then

I would go Subversion first. From what I understand, Arch is just
a proof-of-concept script developed by a single person and now
somewhat stagnant. Subversion is in active development.

I've used subversion a little bit and I've found it to be very
nice. You only need to rename a directory once before you begin
to appreciate it over CVS.

dave


--=-XiTQi1BmCUYq2gPqvopF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+fL0K5effKKCmfpIRAl8uAJ42hJ2xU8HgEerFRMaMc3PuoaLjQACgphB2
D9KUPQdlIpQ8LZgVCuW0ugY=
=Hibg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-XiTQi1BmCUYq2gPqvopF--