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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2B7WWScJZEwMXUeZJCaKqFMuLjWPuLU=dChK61kWN53bWC-P5A>