begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:09:20AM -0700: [snip] > I would give svn 3 *'s out of five. This is not damning it with faint > praise. svn _is_ a compelling replacement for cvs, which is what it set > out to be, and it's a good enough tool to use at the small enterprise > level. I like svn; I just don't love it.
I don't agree that SVN is a compelling replacement for CVS. It doesn't add anything sufficiently useful to be worth the cost of dealing with the dependency-hell involved, much less the attitudes of the advocates. I know I'm not going to convince you, as your loathing of CVS is as well-known as it is irrational, I just object to the continued assertion that it's "compelling". And given that hg and git *are* arguably better than both CVS and SVN (aside from oddities like hg dying horribly on a standard solaris box), skipping straight to one of those (if you don't want to spend the money for Perforce and its pretty graphical tools) would seem to be the truly compelling change. > Hg I don't know (not git either) and I wish I did. Only so many hours in > the day. Hg and Git work transparently with CVS or SVN... you can use them concurrently on the same project, just for practice. If you screw up, no worries, restore from the "main" repository. Every day, you can get in a little bit of practice (if you have the time). -- A three-way merge tool makes almost any VCS more useful. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
