On 2004-04-16, jason@cyberpine.com <jason@cyberpine.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yes, and they always will be. As CVS is basically a wrapper
around RCS, it inherits all the limitations of RCS. Most of the
limitations I mentioned are structural and cannot be fixed while
maintaining compatibility. There have been several protracted
threads about this on the CVS mailing list.

> 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.

Both projects have fewer users, but they have mailing lists,
just like CVS does.

I know where you're coming from. Sure, CVS is easier to sell to
the management because it's proven, and it has a lot of users.
But I don't think it's wise to bet on the current situation,
because the situation is not static. My bold prediction is that
a couple years from now, nobody will use CVS anymore, at least
not for new projects, and you'll be stuck with an obsolete VC
system.

I think the only relevant question is : are GNU arch and
Subversion usable *now* ? Read what their users say on their
mailing list archives and make your own opinion.

> All three are absolutely free?

Yes.

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

Sorry, I'm out of my depth here.

> 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?

Yes, for a new project in a shop that has no past CVS
experience, I don't see any reason to go for CVS instead of
Subversion (unless Subversion is still too buggy, but that's not
what I've heard).

GNU arch is a different animal. It's more like bitkeeper than
CVS in scope.

--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
"Finally I am becoming stupider no more." -- Paul Erdös' epitaph