Mic J <michael.cogn...@gmail.com> writes: >>> But to >>> imply that CVS is better than (or equal to) Mercurial or Git is a bit >>> ridiculous :)
Mercurial and Git are crap. >> Because none of the above mentioned will allow for 70+ developers to >> update ~1.2GB/~140,000 files of source code, allow anonymous checkouts, >> has an available web based interface and interfaces with ssh. Instead > though >> non atomic commits, expensive branches and almost 20 years of work arounds >> are utilized. > > SVN can definitely do this, lost of large project are using it. >From two hours ago at work: $ svn cleanup svn: Working copy 'lib/common' locked svn: run 'svn cleanup' to remove locks (type 'svn help cleanup' for details) $ svn cleanup lib/common svn: Working copy 'lib/common' locked svn: run 'svn cleanup' to remove locks (type 'svn help cleanup' for details) $ svn help cleanup cleanup: Recursively clean up the working copy, removing locks, resuming unfinished operations, etc. usage: cleanup [PATH...] Valid options: --diff3-cmd ARG : use ARG as merge command Global options: --username ARG : specify a username ARG --password ARG : specify a password ARG --no-auth-cache : do not cache authentication tokens --non-interactive : do no interactive prompting --config-dir ARG : read user configuration files from directory ARG $ oooook. And of course the "atomic" commits are bullshit because even though the commit failed and left a corrupted local checkout that I had to manually nuke and then copy the right files over, it still did commit some parts of my work. At least it didn't corrupt the database like it did a year ago where we lost two days of work because the only solution was to restore from backup. Now, only the tree was broken until I could figure out wtf it was doing. At least we know and understand the bugs and limitations of cvs. You don't like it - don't use it, but god sake, stop telling people what your favourite color is and why it should be their favourite color too. //art
