Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
John Peacock wrote: > matter how many features Tony can shoehorn into the existing framework, > it is still a collection of RCS files. Not for long - the medium term plan is to remove RCS. Hopefully by the end of the year (earlier if I can get away with it). > CVS and CVSNT are, at their core, file-centric revision control systems. That's one of its strengths - you can version everything individually. Technically you could do away with the sandbox and version documents - that's in the roadmap too. Tags need to be made recursive and that's in the plan (2.5.03 at the moment, might get it into 2.5.02 with a following wind and a lot of luck). The ability to tag individual files independently of revision is important though.. for some purposes you need that. > branch is the file data copied). A commit in CVS of 1000 files means > that 1000 files are opened and a comment added to each file. A commit You're updating the files anyway - the comment isn't adding more than a tiny fraction to the processing time. > different). With CVS, the only thing that associates multiple files in > a single commit is that they have the same commit message. In .. and the commit identifier. Plus bug identifiers give smaller groupings for task oriented tracking. Generally I'm not in the competition game. I like cvsnt because it does wnat I need it to, and it seems it does what a lot of other people need too. For some subversion is a better fit, and I've no problem with that. The rivalry between OSS projects (hopefully friendly) will mean that features will tend to be picked up by projects and they'll be following each other, more or less. That's healthy. Within that, users will switch and that's fine too. Choice is a good thing... Tony