[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!?
From: |
Jason Rumney |
Subject: |
Re: Policy issue in the VC manual -- recommending CVS?!? |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:14:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) |
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Recommending GNU arch is dubious considering Arch's poorly-maintained
> and poorly-documented state. If I'm not mistaken, Arch has been
> effectively moribund since about 2003.
>
I think you're mistaken. Savannah lists the last release as July last year.
> Recommending CVS is well beyond dubious into outright ridiculous.
>
Like it or not, CVS is stable, and widely used. Its "problems" are
widely exaggerated by adherents to the latest wave of version control
religions.
> No recommendations at all would be better than these. Who decides
> what the manual recommends? If it's "the last person to care", I'm
> going to nuke these in a nanosecond.
Arch is part of GNU