On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > from: Scott Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:52:35PM 0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Can I ask for some clarification here? I had no idea what subversion > > > was, and yet people are now talking about using it _instead_ of CVS. > > > > http://subversion.tigris.org > > So basically subversion is great so long as you like the command line.
http://rapidsvn.tigris.org/ is the most mature GUI for SVN. But there is 3 or 4 around. So basically subversion is great ;) > I > don't object to the fundamental idea of a better CVS (I've not used it > enough to find any problems with CVS that need fixing). Biggest pet hates for me; * CVS no version metadata and thus you can't move files around and keep history (and also live with hacks like prune and manual filesystem hand hacking) * CVS speed/performance can suck when you add in binaries, have lots of empty directories etc. * multi merge sucks > But to use it here, > excludes users and developers who are GUI based, either through a tool > (Eclipse) or specific tool (ViewCVS). ViewCVS is fine as of next version. Eclipse is getting it, apparently IDEA has it as a plugin. All good. -- Cheers, Peter Donald ---------------------------------------------- Money is how people with no talent keep score. ----------------------------------------------
