Karl Berry wrote: > With current issues related to vcs load, I think CVS may have > substantial advantages over Git (not sure for Subversion). > > For the record, Subversion has the same advantages as (and many fewer > disadvantages than) CVS. It is no problem to check out a single > subdirectory; you just do it. As in CVS.
Agreed. Basically for checkout for web pages I think all of the version control systems are very similar in terms of system load. I don't think any web page histories are going to be large enough to make the full download of the entire history to be a problem. Although if a project published binary images (PDFs?) that rolled to new versions often then that could add up to a lot of disk space. (In my previous career I remember a commercial vendor with 10G of PDF manuals that were mostly images. Simply too large to work with.) > That is not to say we should not, in principle, support git for web > pages. Many people want it. -k Personally I am happy with cvs for web pages. For all of the reasons already stated by all. But git for web pages is a feature that users are often asking for. Bob
