On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 8:30:05 PM UTC+5:30, David wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 21:07, Andy Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:29:49AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > > For those of you with decades of experience of CVS, you might as well > > > stick with it. > > > > > > For someone entirely new to VCSes, I would absolutely not recommend > > > CVS at all. > > > > Yes. After reading the various diversions into RCS and CVS history I > > was a little dismayed. > > Indeed, I also felt dismay at the idea that newcomers might follow advice to > start using these ancient, incredibly limited tools. > > I'd be surprised if any of the people advocating them aren't well into > retirement. I'm not trying to change their minds or opinions, I totally > understand wanting to stay with the familiar, because that can be > productive, and I absolutely agree with recommending the > use of version control, but I feel that recommending RCS or CVS for > new starters is extremely poor advice. The field of version control has > seriously moved on from those early tools, which were widely abandoned > and code migrated to more modern tools for legitimate reasons. > It's not a fad. > > Here's a discussion of GIT features vs CVS ... it's ten years old. > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/802573/difference-between-git-and-cvs/824241#824241
Thats a good list of git-cvs comparison One can get similar lists for svn vs cvs etc https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1261/what-are-the-advantages-of-using-svn-over-cvs What does that have to do with Gene's needs/request? We can all agree with these facts rcs followed by cvs followed by svn followed by git >From which follows the conclusion: git obsoletes svn obsoletes cvs obsoletes rcs Except that the last 'obsoletes' is wrong because rcs is so much simpler that it can be taken to solve a quite different problem altogether To summarize the 1st 2nd 3rd version ideas from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_Control_System#Related_tools_and_successors 1st gen : file based revisions (rcs) 2nd gen : client-server model, concurrency (the 'c' in cvs) Actually the first faltering steps towards multi-user, multi-machine, multi-location multi-OS etc usage (zillion other multis eg multi-line-ending support etc) 3rd gen : simplify client-server to peer2peer, disconnected usage, speed etc What features beyond 1st-gen are of any use to someone with Gene's usage scenario viz. a single-user, single (config) file on a single machine?? Note that the fact that git is strongly biased towards projects (directories) rather than files has made people have this kind of discussion [see the accepted answer] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11128434/how-can-i-use-git-to-track-versions-of-a-single-file And even try to implement zit: Note the blurb from https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=Interfaces,_frontends,_and_tools#Zit | Zit by Giuseppe Bilotta is the Git-based single file content tracker; it uses | Git to independently track single files within a directory; sort of like what | RCS does, but with the power, flexibility, elegance and ease of use of Git. | Still in alpha stage. | You can get it from `git://git.oblomov.eu/zit`
