* Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!?
@ 2007-10-10 20:45 Eric S. Raymond
2007-10-10 21:14 ` Jason Rumney
2007-10-11 5:20 ` Richard Stallman
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2007-10-10 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
The current VC manual recommends RCS for small single-file projects,
which is sensible. But it then recommends GNU Arch or CVS for
distributed projects, which is not,
Recommending GNU arch is dubious considering Arch's poorly-maintained
and poorly-documented state. If I'm not mistaken, Arch has been
effectively moribund since about 2003.
Recommending CVS is well beyond dubious into outright ridiculous.
It's 2007; the many and painful problems with CVS have been well known
for a decade and and it is anyway *well* past time to be flogging a
file-oriented VCS to anyone on a distributed project. Anyone who
thinks they want CVS for a new project should get either Subversion or
their head examined.
No recommendations at all would be better than these. Who decides
what the manual recommends? If it's "the last person to care", I'm
going to nuke these in a nanosecond.
What I think we ought to be doing is recommending either Subversion or
any of the modern 3G systems like Mercurial or git or Bzr.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be
to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
-- T.S. Eliot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!?
2007-10-10 20:45 Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!? Eric S. Raymond
@ 2007-10-10 21:14 ` Jason Rumney
2007-10-11 5:20 ` Richard Stallman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jason Rumney @ 2007-10-10 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric S. Raymond; +Cc: emacs-devel
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Recommending GNU arch is dubious considering Arch's poorly-maintained
> and poorly-documented state. If I'm not mistaken, Arch has been
> effectively moribund since about 2003.
>
I think you're mistaken. Savannah lists the last release as July last year.
> Recommending CVS is well beyond dubious into outright ridiculous.
>
Like it or not, CVS is stable, and widely used. Its "problems" are
widely exaggerated by adherents to the latest wave of version control
religions.
> No recommendations at all would be better than these. Who decides
> what the manual recommends? If it's "the last person to care", I'm
> going to nuke these in a nanosecond.
Arch is part of GNU
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!?
2007-10-10 20:45 Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!? Eric S. Raymond
2007-10-10 21:14 ` Jason Rumney
@ 2007-10-11 5:20 ` Richard Stallman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2007-10-11 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric S. Raymond; +Cc: emacs-devel
Please just delete the recommendation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-10-11 5:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-10-10 20:45 Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!? Eric S. Raymond
2007-10-10 21:14 ` Jason Rumney
2007-10-11 5:20 ` Richard Stallman
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).