Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 21:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I think in practice adoption drives portability more than the other way >> around. I don't think CVS became popular because it was portable; > Well, I think it became popular, because it had been and still IS lean, > simple to use/administrate and matches the demands of most projects. I'm fairly certain that's not the case. The primary advantage of CVS that got people to switch to it was that it did considerably more than RCS and had considerably more available administrative features and supported multiuser development (in other words, was much fatter and was much more complex to use, but did more). As soon as something came along that was reasonably polished, did even more, and was still free software, CVS started declining fast. A lot of projects had a love/hate relationship with CVS long before there even was a replacement, and some free software projects (Perl, for instance) even went with proprietary systems because CVS was so limited. It's almost impossible to find new projects these days that start with CVS instead of at least Subversion. -- Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
