[Gllug] CVS vs RCS

[Tethys]

>RCS is not designed for use across a network - indeed, nor is CVS, but
>CVS has at least had this bolted on.

With a bit of careful setup, RCS can be used in a networked environment,
and scaled up to non-trivial numbers of users without too many problems.
CVS is definitely better at this, though, although neither are as good
as a proper SCM system like TrueChange or BitKeeper.

>An interesting alternative is Subversion - still in early stages, but it
>works.
>
>http://subversion.tigris.org/
>
> [...]
>
>However, I have to say it's at least 100 times easier to get to grips
>with than CVS.

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt (primarily because I haven't tried
it, and don't think it's fair to comment until I have), but I'm immediately
wary of it because it's part of the scary Tigris project, who seem hell
bent on reinventing the wheel (or at least, reimplementing it in Java).

Other alternatives worth looking at at arch (although it's home, regexps.com
seems to have finally run out of money -- it's still in google's cache if
you're interested), and aegis. Again, I haven't tried either myself.

Getting back to the original quesiton, since you can't guarantee that
either of the machines are going to be up at any given time, use CVS
instead of RCS. That way, you can continue to work, and just resync
when everything's back up.

Tet

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug