From: Hynek Schlawack Date: 2006-01-04T03:52:58+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby projects and interfaces to revision control systems (Darcs vs. Cogito) * Alan Garrison wrote: > * "Plain" CVS lacks more advanced functionality and doesn't appear to > have any long term evolution goals (and, from a security standpoint, > it allegedly has more holes than a HEPA filter (hence OpenBSD's > implementation, OpenCVS)). > * SVN[1] appears to be just a marginal improvement to CVS from a > functional standpoint. Here's missing one important point: While SVN ist generally much friendlier then CVS, it's also more fragile. Especially the BerkeleyDB-backend should be avoided at any cost as berkdb is fragile on its own. I had two FUBARs in the last monts which made me switch to the fsfs-backend in the end. OTOH CVS is rock-solid (in terms of data-security) as fs-based, thus you can get to your files in any case. > * Darcs, while written in Haskell (not being judgemental, just saying > that it isn't a common language for most folks), appears to be a much > more flexible system (despite a few shortcomings that could possibly > be fixed in the near future). Darcs' biggest shortcomming is arguably its performance when merging "really big stuff"[tm] and I'm afraid that there won't be substantial improvement in the near future. Nevertheless it's the friendliest (free) distributed SCM I've met until now. -- [1] Typo corrected by me.