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.

Main Topics Newest First

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

  • 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
    2004-02-26 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
    2008-02-13 10:52:32  asdfafdsafsdafsdadf [View]

    get a life