[cvsnt] Re: CVSNT and Subversion comparison

[Tony Hoyle]

John Peacock wrote:
> matter how many features Tony can shoehorn into the existing framework, 
> it is still a collection of RCS files.

Not for long - the medium term plan is to remove RCS. Hopefully by the 
end of the year (earlier if I can get away with it).

> CVS and CVSNT are, at their core, file-centric revision control systems. 

That's one of its strengths - you can version everything individually. 
Technically you could do away with the sandbox and version documents - 
that's in the roadmap too.

Tags need to be made recursive and that's in the plan (2.5.03 at the 
moment, might get it into 2.5.02 with a following wind and a lot of 
luck).  The ability to tag individual files independently of revision is 
important though.. for some purposes you need that.

> branch is the file data copied).  A commit in CVS of 1000 files means 
> that 1000 files are opened and a comment added to each file.  A commit 

You're updating the files anyway - the comment isn't adding more than a 
tiny fraction to the processing time.

> different).  With CVS, the only thing that associates multiple files in 
> a single commit is that they have the same commit message.  In 

.. and the commit identifier.  Plus bug identifiers give smaller 
groupings for task oriented tracking.

Generally I'm not in the competition game.  I like cvsnt because it does 
wnat I need it to, and it seems it does what a lot of other people need 
too.  For some subversion is a better fit, and I've no problem with that.

The rivalry between OSS projects (hopefully friendly) will mean that 
features will tend to be picked up by projects and they'll be following 
each other, more or less.  That's healthy.  Within that, users will 
switch and that's fine too.

Choice is a good thing...

Tony