Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> 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 subversion a temporary and already outdated wart in SCM history ;) *shrug*. :) >> 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? Absolutely. Significant progress. It's been a major improvement in efficiency, usability, and maintainability to switch CVS repositories to Subversion and I would never look back at this point. CVS has so many bugs, problems, misfeatures, and broken interfaces and protocols compared to current version control software that I would not recommend its use to anyone who has available alternatives. Just having a sane network protocol is worth a lot by itself, even if there were no other improvements. -- Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
