AW: AW: Rushing too fast for SVN? was...Re: [VOTE] Switch to SVN

[hbaxmann]

> On 日, 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. :-)
> 

Fortunately.

bax

> nadeem.
> 
> > 
> > bax
> > 
> > > TTYL,
> > > 
> > > Phil
> > > 
> > 
>