On æ, 2004-05-30 at 11:18 +0200, hbaxmann wrote: > > But CVS *is* broken in some fairly important ways. For > > Do not think, that cvs is _broken_. It is clearly defined as a successor of > rcs. It contributes concurrent access to rcs. As rcs, it is versioning > files, and only files. No more fortunately, but no less.
and subversion is clearly defined as a successor of cvs. :-) nadeem. > > bax > > > TTYL, > > > > Phil > > >
