Aaron Gray wrote: > Anyway good going, I am glad Linux has an open source VCS again now. > > I do not know how BitKeeper are going to fell knowing they have been > replaced by a Git :) > > I am toying with using a VCS for a set of related projects, either CVS > because its well known, SubVersion for ease of use, or Git as it is new. > Lots to descide upon, any pointers would be appreciated. CVS is showing it's age; mainly the fact that IIRC it began as a series of scripts over RCS, file level version control system, extending version control to sets of files, somewhat. Branching in CVS is serious PITA. Renaming _with_ retaining full and correct history: forget about it. Subversion is "better CVS": still centralized, CVS infernal branching replaced by "cheap copy" branching. Well known, replaces CVS thorough OSS projects. Git, Mercurial, Monotone, Bazaar-NG, Darcs are new brand of distributed VCS. I really like notion of branching in Git; but be warned about tracking and not recording renames, and the need of explicit packing (the latter very minor). Powerfull, perhaps too powerfull for newbie user: but that is what Cogito is for (although now Git contains fairly large set of high-level commands). http://git.or.cz/ http://git.or.cz/gitwiki http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Git and "Other version control software" at http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitLinks P.S. If you decide to use Git as VCS for your project, consider adding entry about it on http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitProjects wiki page. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git (at FreeNode) - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html