[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CVS bashing?
From: |
Paul Sander |
Subject: |
Re: CVS bashing? |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:21:26 -0700 |
All of the points made in that page are right on. I can go on to say more:
- The modules database isn't versioned, which can affect reproducibility
requirements.
- The *info files accept a comprehensive list of sources on their command
lines, limiting their scalability. (After a branch merge on a very large
project, the command line buffer of the shell invoking the *info file
can overflow, causing breakage.)
- Triggers registered via the modules database are sometimes persistent,
causing suprises after modifications.
- The history file grows without bound, and can't be managed in any natural
way.
I'm sure I can go on if I think about this for a few minutes...
--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
Someone brought up a site on another mailing list about CVS and its
limitations and was citing this as a reason to not use CVS...what do you
all think about this? Some of this stuff I have personally witmessed
(i.e. large binary file problem, no directory versioning) but I'm
curious as to others opinions...
http://www.snuffybear.com/scm_grind_cvs.htm
--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden
- Re: CVS bashing?, (continued)
- Re: CVS bashing?, Eric Siegerman, 2001/04/11
- Re: CVS bashing?,
Paul Sander <=
- RE: CVS bashing?, Chuck . Irvine, 2001/04/11
- RE: CVS bashing?, Jerry Nairn, 2001/04/11
- RE: CVS bashing?, Jerry Nairn, 2001/04/11
- Re: CVS bashing?, Noel L Yap, 2001/04/12