Re: CVS Support
Re: CVS Support
- Subject: Re: CVS Support
- From: Jeffrey Oleander <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
> Bill Bumgarner <email@hidden> 2011-06-28 13:11 wrote:
>> On 2011 Jun 28, at 08:58, Howard Siegel wrote:
>> Switching source control control systems, especially
>> if the old system is well entrenched, is a extremely(!)
>> difficult(!) thing to do even if the new system is
>> "similar" to the old. And if other parts of his
>> group/company/etc depend on CVS and have no reason
>> to switch, it may not even be possible for political
>> reasons.
>
> CVS is buggy, inadequate and prone to failure at
> inopportune times (as if there is a good time to fail).
> CVS can't do atomic commits, has horrible branch
> and merge behaviors, and doesn't scale particularly
> well.
> If you are using CVS, you will lose data.
> You may not even know you lost it, but it is
> gone.
> SVN really is a better CVS...
We're back to banging rocks together. Source library/
configuration/version control was more advanced back
in the mid-1980s than it is today.
As to porting, it should be a matter of clicking an
option while saving/checking in a changed file in a
project to have it port the whole thing to use a
different behind the scenes engine.
And we certainly shouldn't have all this cruft on our
disks -- the original files we had before we put the
project into a repository, the repository, and the
whole project a third time, checked out. At most,
we should have the repository and the individual
checked-out files we're working on in our sand-box.
Further deponent saith nought.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden