On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 07:44 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > cvs doesn't separate the concept of tags and branches. > Right, this bloats the repos sizes on the server (svn pushes this bloat > to the clients) and renders "branch removal" a pain on the server. > > > It also works on > > individual files rather than whole trees. > Right, but I don't see this as a disadvantage. It's a different working > principle. This is actually what I hate most about CVS. It doesn't have the concept of changesets. So you can commit a bunch of files at once, that logically should be considered as one change and have a single file fail to commit because of a conflict while the rest go into the repo. It's annoying when that happens because now you have a broken repo because not all the files were committed and tracking history of the files at that point starts to become difficult. Looking at a cvs log, you cannot determine if version 1.2 of foo.c and 1.4 of bar.c logically belong together very easily. It gets worse with the branching. In git, svn, hg, and other SCMs, changesets are supported. A huge +1 in my opinion. josh (Note, I'm not a huge fan of svn, especially it's branching scheme. But it at least has changesets.) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
