[cvsnt] Re: CVSNT and Subversion comparison

merkle news at merkleonline.de
Fri May 20 20:55:48 BST 2005


I only can confirm the statements below.
Please release fewer and better tested version of CVSNT

>Neither do I, but I'm seriously considering it. The main reason for that is
>that I'm slowly losing trust in the development process of cvsnt. Binaries
>for previous stable builds are not available anymore (so you need to keep
>your own copies around), there's no publicly available bug database (so you
>need to keep your own log, extracted from the mailing list about what works
>and what doesn't in every stable build you may consider for updating),
>there have been some showstopper bugs in releases called stable ("&" in
>file names messed up the meta files), and so on... It seems cvsnt is in a
>constant flow, fixing some bugs while introducing others, and there's never
>a stable point where you can take a build and deploy it with confidence. By
>the time it's confirmed that a build works, it's not available anymore...
>or better, by the time it's confirmed what exactly doesn't work in a stable
>build, these bug fixes get included in the current development cycle,
>which, of course, when it gets released as stable, has its own new bugs. So
>I get the feeling that whenever I think of updating my server, I'm in for a
>deep plunge, with the fix usually being to update to the latest development
>build, with the associated risks.
>
>Gerhard
>_______________________________________________
>cvsnt mailing list
>cvsnt at cvsnt.org
>http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt
>
>  
>




More information about the cvsnt mailing list