On Tue, October 23, 2007 11:30 am, Christian Seberino wrote: > > Lan Barnes wrote: > >> But on another tack (hijack alert), svn is powers of 10 improved over >> cvs, >> but still enough flawed so that I for one don't want to go there. > > Give Subversion some credit. Is it 10x better than CVS or not? If a > product achieved that then they deserve *some* luv. If that is *still* > not good enough for your standards then I fret you'll *never* find a SCM > system fine enough for you. I've used CVS and Subversion and so I *love* > Subversion.
I thought I had. But it still lacks facilities that any serious enterprise needs, which means that (unlike Linux, Apache, etc) it's inadequate for professional use. Unless the business powers are bigger cheap bastards than I am, which would be monumental. > > I wanted to like Git and Mercurial but couldn't see a pressing reason to > go decentralized. > The ability to be decentralized is almost necessary in these days of decentrailzed development (and it's not just outsourcing -- we have development in Houston and North Carolins). But IMO that should be an option, not the default design. And to repeat, I haven't been able to devote enough time to mercurial or git to even read their docs, let alone set up a test system. FWIW, I still use RCS a lot in my home stuff because it takes zip to set up and is adequate for a 1-guy 1-box development model. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
