On Monday 21 January 2019 00:12:21 Rusi Mody wrote: > On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 8:30:05 PM UTC+5:30, David wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 21:07, Andy Smith wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:29:49AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > > For those of you with decades of experience of CVS, you might as > > > > well stick with it. > > > > > > > > For someone entirely new to VCSes, I would absolutely not > > > > recommend CVS at all. > > > > > > Yes. After reading the various diversions into RCS and CVS history > > > I was a little dismayed. > > > > Indeed, I also felt dismay at the idea that newcomers might follow > > advice to start using these ancient, incredibly limited tools. > > > > I'd be surprised if any of the people advocating them aren't well > > into retirement. I'm not trying to change their minds or opinions, I > > totally understand wanting to stay with the familiar, because that > > can be productive, and I absolutely agree with recommending the > > use of version control, but I feel that recommending RCS or CVS for > > new starters is extremely poor advice. The field of version control > > has seriously moved on from those early tools, which were widely > > abandoned and code migrated to more modern tools for legitimate > > reasons. It's not a fad. > > > > Here's a discussion of GIT features vs CVS ... it's ten years old. > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/802573/difference-between-git-an > >d-cvs/824241#824241 > > Thats a good list of git-cvs comparison > One can get similar lists for svn vs cvs etc > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1261/what-are-the-advantages-of-us >ing-svn-over-cvs > > What does that have to do with Gene's needs/request? > > We can all agree with these facts > rcs followed by cvs followed by svn followed by git > > From which follows the conclusion: > git obsoletes svn obsoletes cvs obsoletes rcs > > Except that the last 'obsoletes' is wrong because rcs is so much > simpler that it can be taken to solve a quite different problem > altogether > > To summarize the 1st 2nd 3rd version ideas from > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_Control_System#Related_tools_an >d_successors > > 1st gen : file based revisions (rcs) > 2nd gen : client-server model, concurrency (the 'c' in cvs) > Actually the first faltering steps towards > multi-user, multi-machine, multi-location multi-OS etc usage > (zillion other multis eg multi-line-ending support etc) > 3rd gen : simplify client-server to peer2peer, disconnected usage, > speed etc > > What features beyond 1st-gen are of any use to someone with Gene's > usage scenario viz. a single-user, single (config) file on a single > machine?? > Finally, some understands the difference, thank you. Finding the save-as stuff in geany, apparently disabled by default, is exactly the stuff I needed.
> Note that the fact that git is strongly biased towards projects > (directories) rather than files has made people have this kind of > discussion [see the accepted answer] > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11128434/how-can-i-use-git-to-trac >k-versions-of-a-single-file > > And even try to implement zit: > > Note the blurb from > https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=Interfaces,_frontends,_and >_tools#Zit > > | Zit by Giuseppe Bilotta is the Git-based single file content > | tracker; it uses Git to independently track single files within a > | directory; sort of like what RCS does, but with the power, > | flexibility, elegance and ease of use of Git. Still in alpha stage. > | You can get it from `git://git.oblomov.eu/zit` Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
