[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: giving up CVS

From: Paul Sander
Subject: RE: giving up CVS
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:40:04 -0700

>--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods:

>[ On Friday, September 14, 2001 at 17:48:24 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: RE: giving up CVS
>> Suggest all you want.  Lots of people disagree.  Lots of people consider
>> the "concurrent" features to be of minor benefit.  I daresay that some
>> find the concurrent features to be annoyances, but then they're not
>> applying it correctly to their problem.

>Paul, you're beating your dead horse, again.  It's irrelevant whether
>people consider the parallel development features to be of "minor" or
>"major" benefit.  The point isn't what they measure the relevant benefit
>here, but rather what CVS was designed to deliver.  If anyone considers
>the concurrent development features of CVS to be even a minor annoyance
>then they are clearly not using the right tool for the job.  Period.

That depends on how they're using it.  But I agree in principle that it's
much better not to fight the tool.  On the other hand, merging binary
files from one branch to another has annoying results when using CVS
because its merge algorithm isn't robust enough to handle certain types
of source code in a modern environment.

>Use the right tool for the job, or be annoyed.  It's your choice.  At
>this point there shouldn't even be any valid believable excuse for
>making the wrong choice any more.

Or, fix the tool, as I've suggested many times before.

>> The reason there's a decade of complaints is because no one has tried to
>> give better support for binary files.  The complaints are the same
>> rudimentary ones repeated over and over.

>Hmmm....  I don't see you offering up any working code.  You'd think
>after a decade of complaints that someone would have offered up a new
>variant of CVS that works better with binary files -- if only to quite
>the compliants.  Maybe it's a little more complex than you've made it
>out to be!

You missed the two simple scripts I sent out about a week ago, then.
It's not as complicated as would try to lead people to believe.

>>  And the complaints are not that
>> people have made a poor choice, it's that the tool offers excessively
>> poor support.

>Your reasoning is so illogical it's not even funny.  I wish it were
>beyond belief too, but I've come to expect the same from you anyway.

Obviously, you just don't get it.  Come back when you find a clue.

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]