[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Ongoing Comparison Between Version Control Systems

From: Patrick Mauritz
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Ongoing Comparison Between Version Control Systems
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 18:37:25 +0200

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 17:59, Zack Brown wrote:
> * In the "Ease of Deployment" section, you say arch is "excellent" while
>   CVS is only "Good". I think CVS is probably the easiest to deploy, partly
>   because it is shipped standard on all decent operating systems.  If any of
>   them are going to have an ease of deployment rating of "excellent", it 
> should
>   be CVS. Arch is included in the unstable Debian, but Debian testing has an
>   older version with different features. I think that makes arch deployment
>   "good" at best, probably only "fair". I would personally categorize CVS as
>   "Excellent", Aegis and BK as "Good", and arch and svn as "Fair".
what is deployment? is it:
 - availability of clients in standard systems? (1)
 - availability of clients for standard systems? (2)
 - integration in IDEs? (3)
 - ease of use for novices (ie. not even CVS knowledge)? (4)
 - ease of installing a server for that tool? (5)

my rating:
(1): CVS: good (delivered at least with free unices), others: fair
(pretty easy to build and install)
(2): CVS: good, others: fair
(3): CVS: excellent, others: fair
(4): all of them: fair - each tool has its own idiosyncrasies
(5): arch: excellent (basically take whatever file serving tool you
have), others: good to bad

you gotta choose one of them (and ideally clarify 'Ease of Deployment' a
bit) ;)

patrick mauritz

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]