RE: giving up CVS

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Friday, September 14, 2001 at 17:48:24 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: giving up CVS
>
> Suggest all you want.  Lots of people disagree.  Lots of people consider
> the "concurrent" features to be of minor benefit.  I daresay that some
> find the concurrent features to be annoyances, but then they're not
> applying it correctly to their problem.

Paul, you're beating your dead horse, again.  It's irrelevant whether
people consider the parallel development features to be of "minor" or
"major" benefit.  The point isn't what they measure the relevant benefit
here, but rather what CVS was designed to deliver.  If anyone considers
the concurrent development features of CVS to be even a minor annoyance
then they are clearly not using the right tool for the job.  Period.

Use the right tool for the job, or be annoyed.  It's your choice.  At
this point there shouldn't even be any valid believable excuse for
making the wrong choice any more.

> The reason there's a decade of complaints is because no one has tried to
> give better support for binary files.  The complaints are the same
> rudimentary ones repeated over and over.

Hmmm....  I don't see you offering up any working code.  You'd think
after a decade of complaints that someone would have offered up a new
variant of CVS that works better with binary files -- if only to quite
the compliants.  Maybe it's a little more complex than you've made it
out to be!

>  And the complaints are not that
> people have made a poor choice, it's that the tool offers excessively
> poor support.

Your reasoning is so illogical it's not even funny.  I wish it were
beyond belief too, but I've come to expect the same from you anyway.

Use the right tool for the job, or be annoyed and poorly supported.
It's YOUR choice.


-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>     <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>;   Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>