Re: Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!?

[Jason Rumney]

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