Andre Majorel <amajorel@teezer.fr> wrote in message >
> Subversion is meant as the successor to CVS, without the
> limitations of the original (the lack of support for directories
> and symlinks, renaming, atomic commits, changesets, undo, etc.)
>
> GNU arch is more powerful than Subversion, but also more
> complex.
>
> CVS became very popular because it was more or less the only
> libre SCM allowing concurrent access. Now that better
> alternatives are available, I expect that most CVS users will
> gradually move to either Subversion or GNU arch. My employer (a
> Unix ISV) plans to do so in the short term.

Thanks for your response, very helpful right now.

Some newbie questions

Are those limitation still true for CVS?

Lets say I wanted to encapsulate the promotion process in a script and
test that sources for certain code standards and reject the promotion
if that naming convention or actual code standard fails? Possible with
all three products? Possible in likely the same ways?

With such a large install base for CVS, would it not be safer (from a
support point of view) to stay with the croud for now. Reason I ask is
that management is hesitant to go freeware unless we can prove that
the list servers and online doc are as good as or better than phone
support you get with a commercial product.

All three are absolutely free?

The products don't come with any management approval process right,
that would have to be built around the product right?

So what you are saying is, most new shops looking to plug in free
change control would likely choose one of those new and improved
version, there would be no good reason to go to CVS?

Thanks again.