On Saturday 04 March 2006 10:19,
pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com wrote:
> --- Dag-Erling Smrgrav <des@des.no>
ha scritto:
> > Peter Jeremy
<peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> writes:
> > > An alternative VCS may have
> > > technical advantages (atomic
> > > commits and versioned metadata
> > > are the two main ones) but unless
> > > it allows anyone to have a local
> > > copy of the repository and
> > > implements all the CVS read
> > > commands (checkout, diff,
> > > history, log, update)
> > > indentically to CVS then it's a
> > > drastic change.
> >
> > Subversion meets all your criteria.
>> [--- snipped ---]
Hi
My apologies in advance if I am
proceeding too far with an OT post.
IANAE on VCSs but I have been doing a
lot of reading of late concerning the
differences between VCSs. I really
believe SVN has some extremely
compelling features but the way it
does/does not do its tagging is, I
believe, an important concern. If I
understand correctly it is the whole
repository that gets a version number
and not individual files.
Here is one of the URIs I used for
information which is a feature summary
and comparion (by no means exhaustive)
between CVS and SVN.
http://www.pushok.com/soft_svn_vscvs.php
Best regards,
--Duane