Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 04:41:56 +0200 From: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> To: Matthias Andree <mandree@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does / Is anyone maintaining CVS for FreeBSD? Message-ID: <CA%2B7WWScJZEwMXUeZJCaKqFMuLjWPuLU=dChK61kWN53bWC-P5A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50E36875.8090105@FreeBSD.org> References: <50E1D012.1040004@missouri.edu> <20121231175808.GA1399@glenbarber.us> <6817fb4c15659b194cc658b1dfa58a31.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <CADLo83-RtuRE58HORn8ocqRVtcF3ZANJoHh1D8TO=aucwywbQw@mail.gmail.com> <f7a783bba9425aeaf67d94056b49f272.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <50E36875.8090105@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Matthias Andree <mandree@freebsd.org> wrote: > Am 31.12.2012 21:40, schrieb Chris H: > >> IM(NS)HO; SVN is an inferior RCS created so Windows users wouldn't feel >> left out. > > No, and it has nothing to do with Windows. CVS does work on Windows. > > SVN 1.5 or newer is CVS done right, if you want the server-client split > model, and can waive the "distributed" nature of Mercurial, Git, or > Bazaar-NG. > > For those who abuse CVS as content distribution and management system to > just peek at individual files, it may not matter, and the pain of > migrating to SVN may dominate, but if you have ever manually assembled a > list of versions for how to merge because someone else branched in CVS > without laying proper tags, you know why CVS must be replaced. It's completely laughable to try to put a "yet another dumbed down tool for windows users" label on Subversion. It's not. To the OP of this thread, do your homework before you make such claims.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2B7WWScJZEwMXUeZJCaKqFMuLjWPuLU=dChK61kWN53bWC-P5A>