Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:44:46 -0500 (EST) From: Tom Huppi <thuppi@huppi.com> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Cc: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RCS utility Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0412171619280.37030@nuumen.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <20041217123049.GA11503@nic.fr> References: <4d073056041217005126375bda@mail.gmail.com> <20041217123049.GA11503@nic.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 06:10:55AM -0500, > Tom Huppi <thuppi@huppi.com> wrote > a message of 44 lines which said: > > > If you think RCS is cool for general text file maintanence, you > > really should consider CVS as well. > > CVS was fine but, if you start now, it may be a better idea to use a > more modern tool such as Subversion (for centralized service) or arch > or darcs (for decentralized service). > > See devel/subversion, devel/darcs and devel/arch. I've not used the latter two, but I set up a subversion repository a few months ago as an experiment. I've administered and used CVS in large projects, and have seen it stressed to the breaking point (as well as run across it's deficiencies like lack of directory revisioning.) This was the main reason I tried subversions which I had an eye on since early in it's development. I liked it in my initial tests, and would recommend it, but... ...CVS is still in wide use and probably will be for some time. Because of it's simple repository structure, administering and understanding it is quite easy and low overhead compared to more capable (or simply, more complex) revision control systems. My comments were aimed at considering CVS for projects which might be an incremental step above RCS, and it's got pros and cons depending on the nature of the project. Thanks, - Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.58.0412171619280.37030>