[Gllug] CVS vs RCS

[Dave Cridland]

On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 14:11, TM wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm begining a new project in C and I've decided it's time
> to manage my files in a more 'professional' way. After I
> spoke to a few people at work, the choices seem to be either
> using CVS or RCS to take care of my code backups.
> 
> I understand that RCS is meant to be used by a single user;
> CVS when the project is a collaboration between various individuals.
> 
> What I haven't been able to figure out yet is if any of the two
> software packages assumes that the computer that runs the server
> is always on.
> 
> I want to have a server on my home PC running Linux (maybe duplicating
> the server at work, running Solaris). The box at home is not always
> switched on, like the machine at work. Can anyone tell me if this is
> going to be a problem please?
> 
> All suggestions/comments are welcomed.

CVS is essentially multi-user RCS. It's well known as being a
complicated and convoluted beast.

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

CVS does not require continuous access to the server, but will require
it for almost every operation.

An interesting alternative is Subversion - still in early stages, but it
works.

http://subversion.tigris.org/

Subversion has network access built-in, rather than built-on, and is
designed to avoid touching the server whenever possible. The network
server is, however, an Apache 2 module, speaking DAV/DeltaV.

It's highly multiplatform, but will require a bit more work to get
working, since you'll need such gems as grabbing the CVS HEAD of apache
2, and also the Subversion trunk of Subversion, is order to build it.

However, I have to say it's at least 100 times easier to get to grips
with than CVS.

Dave.


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