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.

Full Threads Newest First

Showing messages 1 through 6 of 6.

  • 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.
    • terrible article
      2004-02-05 05:23:38  zooko [View]

      Subversion appears to be riddled with bugs, from what I've read.

      I would definitely use CVS over Subversion, in February of 2004.
      • terrible article
        2004-02-05 09:56:30  sanchonevesgraca [View]

        FUD. Subversion has a release candidate and is used in several large projects. It has been usable for more than a year. How about leaving judgment to people who actually use the tool and can testify to its stability. I definitely use Subversion over CVS, in February of 2004.
  • 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
      2004-02-26 12:25:50  chromatic | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

      It's difficult to make one solid recommendation that suits everyone, but I do understand your frustration with the conclusion. There's a lot more heat than light, and the best anyone can do right now is give an opinion. Here's mine.



      If you're already comfortable using CVS, it's worth trying Subversion on any new projects, now that they've released version 1.0. The learning curve is very gentle for existing CVS users and the new features and missing bugs make it nice.



      If you're interested in more distributed development, where developers can maintain their own trees, Arch seems to be the best choice at the moment. It's under rapid development and has several high-profile projects. You will have to adapt to its style of use, though you'll see a lot of benefits from working with it, not against it.



      If you'd rather have a system that manages your development process, perhaps Aegis will fit. I've not used it, but I'm impressed that it enforces practices such as test-driven development. Again, there's a lot to learn here.



      If you're working with a hosting system, you're likely stuck with what they give you. If that's CVS, hopefully you know the limitations and can deal with them.

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

    get a life