> From: Michael Price [mailto:mprice@atl.lmco.com]
>
> > I don't think Subversion will completely ever be a superset of
CVS's
> > entire use case out of the box. I think that's very unrealistic.
CVS
> has
> > several very broken ideas about how it should do certain things.
Group,
> > and other permission setting as the classic recent example of a
hotly
> > debated issue.
> >
> > 95% intersection with CVS use cases, perhaps, but I don't think
we'd
> > ever want to do a 100% use case intersection with CVS. It's not
worth
> > the extra grief, code management issues, and just plain bad design.
> >
> > In fact, thinking that Subversion is supposed to be a complete
superset
> > of CVS seems to be a very common misconception. :(
>
> Gee, I wonder how people come away with that "misconception"...
>
> Lets look at the subversion homepage:
>
> "Subversion is trying to be a better CVS, so it will have all CVS
> features eventually, with most of them in the 1.0 release."
>
> Note that it doesn't say "most", or "the good features", or "95%".
> It says "all" features.
>
> Until the homepage and other documents spread around the site are
fixed
> then it ain't a misconception, its a stated goal.
>
We should correct this typo anywhere and everywhere. People should
hardly ever use the phrase "all" in feature like lists, 75% of the time
its either an inadvertent typo, or they trying to con you. We certainly
don't want to con folks.
You'll notice above the bit that says all, it does say most, but we
should correct everything just the same.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 30 23:32:07 2002