John Calcote wrote:
> Vincent Starre wrote:
>
>> Read a few messages up. This thread is not "CVS's way is better",
>> this is "limitations of the current system and how they might be
>> improved". There should probably be a blanket ban on even mentioning
>> CVS in this thread :)
>
> I would disagree with that sentiment. From the beginning Subversion
> has been advertised by the designers as being the "replacement for
> CVS". Very little rational discussion of Subversion features can
> happen outside the context of existing CVS features. Granted, this
> will diminish over time, and eventually will not be the case (when no
> one can remember CVS anymore! :) But there are still a lot of folks
> out there using CVS and considering Subversion - they DO care about
> feature compatibility between Subversion and what they currently use.
>
> John
My only concern is that whenever I see "tag" and "cvs" mentioned in the
same post (or line, in IRC), the entire thread seems doomed to be a
shouting match between the "All we want are revision aliases!" people
and the "here are all the reasons why disconnected revision aliases make
no sense, revision aliases couldnt possibly make sense" people. More
generally, it tends to distract from the seperation of "here are the
curreent problems" and "here are the proposed solutions" (things which I
think should _always_ be done in two seperate messages with a topic this
volitile). Instead, people tend to say "well, this is how CVS does it,
so I think SVN should do it that way".
So I suppose, to clarify: CVS should not be mentioned when discussing a
limitation of the current system. If you can't describe the limitation
without mentioning CVS, then the "limitation" is probably just a
difference in syntax that you're not used to.
Example:
"With CVS, I was able to create tags easily using [such and such]. Here
I need to type [such and such]!"
vs:
"The commands used to create tags seem overly-long and are non-intuitive
unless you already have more familiarity with svn's back-end than should
probably be required for such a basic operation"
This also helps me (and probably nobody else), since I've never used CVS
at all and have trouble following posts which treat "the CVS way" as
some sort of standard. If there's a limitation with SVN, I want to know
about it. Learning the solutions to things makes me eventually work
faster when I exploit that knowledge the next time I [whatever]. But
"This is how CVS does it, therefor SVN is limited" doesnt help me.
Yeah, I'm whiny and selfish :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 20 21:08:54 2006