RE: commit question

[Arthur Barrett]

Larry,

> CVS is still alive and well in the non-Windows world, despite the best
> attempts of the CVSNT folks.  

It is certainly NOT the aim of the CVSNT project to 'kill' CVS or to
'steal' CVS users (but I think you know that).

However I certainly think it's a 'good thing' for users who find
themselves liking CVS but needing some 'extra' features (that other CVS
users do NOT want) like rename, ACLs, failsafe audit, mergepoints and
merge tracking, change sets, atomic commit id's etc to stick with their
existing 'investment' and use CVSNT rather than be told they should use
some other open source software that doesn't in fact provide any
additional features (but is perhaps fashionable) or a 'commercial SCM'
that restricts the 'freedoms' of those who use it.  

I am perhaps a little overzealous at times in my advocacy of CVSNT, but
it is at least partly driven by frustration at seeing people coerced
into using non-free(dom) software because they are told that for SOX
compliance, or 'best practice SCM' or some other goal that they have to
use ClearCase and nothing else, and/or equally frustrated at people who
change SCM systems because something else suddenly becomes fashionable.

I personally don't think there is anything 'wrong' with CVS - it is a
fast, efficient, lean and simple to use versioning system.  It is only
because CVS is such a good version control system that Tony (and more
recently a few others) were able to build CVSNT from that base.

Regards,



Arthur