Women in Technology

Article:		The New Breed of Version Control Systems
Subject:		terrible article
Date:		2004-02-02 01:58:57
From:		drek
Usually I see quality content in the articles on this site. This article is borderline ridiculous. Without any solid reasoning or alternative provided, there is a recommendation at the end of the article to not use CVS. IMO, this should be either rewritten or pulled.

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• terrible article
  2008-02-13 10:52:32  asdfafdsafsdafsdadf [View]
  
  
  get a life

• terrible article
  2004-02-26 12:07:53  dettifoss [View]
  
  
  I have to agree. I knew very little about versioning systems, other than that CVS is the "standard", while being simultaneously widely criticized for its failings. So I turned to this article - to O'Reilly - for pointers to alternatives.
  
  What I found was profound equivocation. The message I got was, don't use CVS, and then, on the other hand, the alternatives aren't much better, if at all.
  
  I felt there was really very little thought given to the content of the article beyond its structure, and the descriptions of the included systems left almost everything lacking.
  
  As a result, I put the project on the backburner for a month.

• terrible article
  2004-02-02 02:42:39  shlomif [View]
  
  
  Pheeww... what a troll.
  
  I think many of the systems covered are superior to CVS in one way or another. Subversion, especially is a superset of CVS' functionality, and so the choice is between Subversion and the others, not between CVS and the others.
  
  I explained why CVS was not good and why other systems were better in the article.