I, for one, will not be an early adopter of a version control system apart from CVS. However, I'm glad someone else is taking the risk. Really the only annoyance with CVS I've had is in refactoring directory layouts, although I know others have their own complaints.
I wonder if in the end the best thing about Subversion or Darcs will be that it prods the CVS maintainers into enhancing CVS. I like the idea that CVS is a standard, albeit unofficial.
Hi Glenn! I am using CVS for quite a while and I am happy with it. However this will not stop me for seeing some of its problems - from which some will not be considered afaik by the CVS developers. For some of them I know that there is a good explanation, for others there is not (f.e. moving files around).
The good newss is there are plenty of people working on Subversion, like Apache. Moving files around is an advantage, but the idea of atomic commits can really help the code/release management. [ January 18, 2005: Message edited by: Jeff Machols ]
Author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932394362/ref=jranch-20" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Subversion in Action</a>
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
I fully agree that atomic commits are an important missing feature of CVS. Even emulating it costs a lot :-) (in hours/man).