Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:52:48 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Anton Yuzhaninov <citrin+bsd@citrin.ru> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs Message-ID: <20161001095248.8d468656.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <0c1654bc-5398-3a88-556d-ce90e761cb44@citrin.ru> References: <6470061F-3127-4CD8-BB14-EB46D46B0BF1@mail.sermon-archive.info> <23c8bfcb-5112-accb-6607-3448104d5a0f@holgerdanske.com> <17E1B6D8-4BC6-4698-8E5C-7EFF7CD7E31F@mail.sermon-archive.info> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1609290653420.7457@wonkity.com> <1A870E64-1FD1-4B4F-BDD4-D104DA79D488@mail.sermon-archive.info> <0c1654bc-5398-3a88-556d-ce90e761cb44@citrin.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:49:12 -0400, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote: > On 2016-09-29 15:31, Doug Hardie wrote: > > I looked through that. Subversion is a more complicated system. > > There is only one developer (me) so I don't really want to make > > this into more than I need. > > I case of single developer it is more easy to use git or mercurial. Or keep using CVS if you do not need any of the more modern features and therefore see no reason to switch tools. > Subversion is better suited for corporate environment (or for opensource > projects with centralized development model). Subversion almost "works the same" as CVS, even though it adds a lot of features, so it's typically considered the "natural successor" of CVS. Git is often said to be "too different" and "surprising" in what its subcommands do. :-) > I prefer Mercurial because it simpler to use (thought not as feature > rich as git). > Just run > $ hg init > in local directory and you already can start to work with local repo. Guess what? You just run % cvs init to achieve the same goal with CVS. ;-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161001095248.8d468656.freebsd>