Hello
I currently use CVS for our projects - we have 9 modules, about 9300
files, close to 80Mbytes in total (mostly .jsp and .java files). We don't
do much in-house development, but quite a bit of bug fixing and minor
improvements.
Most of the new development is done offsite for us - the code
You can use CygWin (http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/), instead. IMHO, CygWin
provides better Unix-on-NT support than MKS does.
Noel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.09.12 18:15:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Noel L Yap)
Subject: CVS versus MKS (or should I avoid moving to MKS
Antonio,
MKS is a decent tool for file-based version control. It does offer some
features beyond what CVS including:
1) Security policy using their Security and Administration Module (SAM) on
a per-project and/or per-user basis
2) *Automatic* file type detection (ASCII vs Binary)
3) Option t
Noel L Yap wrote:
>
> You can use CygWin (http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/), instead. IMHO, CygWin
> provides better Unix-on-NT support than MKS does.
I think he's talking about MKS Source Integrity, which is one of the
most wretched, awful, kludged, hideous evil source code control systems
to
The biggest thing CVS has going for it over MKS SI
is the (mostly) automatic merging of branches on
a project- or module-wide basis using 3-way diffs.
MKS merging is file-by-file, and is 2-way diff based
manual process, (or was, last time I checked, which was
a year ago or so).
A couple other p
