On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > 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). Well, I disagree, but you've just pretty nicely described why I find subversion a temporary and already outdated wart in SCM history ;) > 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. True, but do you feel subversion is progress? As a user, I have to disagree. subversion has not been progress. It's different, and has different pros and cons, but that's essentially all. It's what I feel is the reason why I think people still are striving for a better SCM. Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
