I never thought anyone would still seriously advocate CVS over anything else these days, but I was wrong.
Hah. I've seen way too many cvs pserver bugs out there—and that's still the only possible way to go if you want anonymous CVS access.
this is fixed in r132rather than having to say
this is fixed in r1.74 of foo/bar, r1.34 of foo/baz, and r1.82 of foo/quuxis very helpful. Your suggestion about dates (
there's normally at least a quarter of an hour between commits) only suggests that you haven't seen many large projects in the heat of code changes. And even if that weren't true, the fact that it
normallyisn't a problem makes it even more of a problem on the occasions that it, in fact, does take less than a few seconds between my commit and yours
Really. Have you tried comparing CVS to anything else, on a serious project?
There should really be a way for all those version control systems to talk to eachother. After all, they all have one thing in common: they're all ways to exchange patches. Surely there must be some way to device a protocol or something so that those patches can be easily sent from one version control system to the other and back again?
Why you should move away from Microsoft. Now.
Visual Studio 2005, the new version of Microsoft's development tools, is coming out. Among its new features are Branching, Bug Tracking, and Atomic Checkins. Yes, that's right: Anno 2004, Microsoft still did not sell a version control system that had something as basic and important as branching. Kinda reminds me of the time when Microsoft implemented a telnet service for Windows right around the time when the UNIX world finally decided that telnet and RSH are insecure by design and that you should use SSH instead.
If Microsoft keeps lagging behind on such fundamental issues, you shouldn't be using them.