Re: [Fwd: [arch-users] Re: Gud lord!]

["Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu>]

> I know. But I'm not talking about implementation. Nowhere in this thread
> I've done so. Subversion is a better CVS, from the user's POV. I'd like
> to use a program with a similar mindset, user-wise, than CVS. BitKeeper,
> for what I've heard, is vastly different, and I think arch too.

Hmm... for me, what makes CVS what it is, is that it's (add salt
throughout) easy to setup, easy to administer, lightweight, in
the sense that when something goes wrong, you don't need to learn
much about the in-repository format because it's basically obvious,
so you can fix things fairly easily with the usual tools.
I.e. you get to reuse the knowledge you've acquired while using
all those other unix tools.

The "mindset" of the user interface is much less significant,
from my point of view.  I also think it tends to be over-emphasized
in all those tools where they use new terms and warn you "this
is a whole new concept" whereas in the end it's just very much
all the same: edit, update, merge, diff, commit.

Sure things like tags and branches might work differently, but
note that Subversion is radically different from CVS in this respect
as well ;-)


	Stefan