Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Based on this comparison and other information I've seen, doesn't it just make sense to choose CVS for most OS projects?

    I recognize that some of the problems are painful for complex or heavily used development environments, but the ubiquity, the tools, the documentation makes it an obvious big win for most projects, doesn't it?

    Where I work, I'm going to be forced to start using CA's Harvest, which looks pretty involved, especially for small projects. Anybody have any comments or experience on this produc

    • Based on this comparison and other information I've seen, doesn't it just make sense to choose CVS for most OS projects?
      I've given an intro-to-CVS talk for a few user groups over the years. I'm constantly amazed at how many developers are working with significant bodies of code without version control.

      Then again, using version control wasn't the norm 10-15 years ago. And a lot of Perl programmers aren't professional developers, so CVS is just another entry on the "list of things I gotta learn" for many newbies.

      I describe CVS as the "gold standard" of version control. It's not the best, but it is certainly very capable. Better systems address some deficiency of CVS in one edge case or another. For general (lightweight) use, it's all you need most of the time. It's also a good choice in the general case, because it's so widely used, well understood, extensively documented, and supported by so many tools.