From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] CVS (Was: lucio-) Message-ID: <20020109132621.O12098@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20020109030647.9FEA619A45@mail.cse.psu.edu> <20020109065259.G12098@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <3C3C2265.5D8B1EFD@strakt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3C3C2265.5D8B1EFD@strakt.com>; from Boyd Roberts on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:58:45AM +0100 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:26:22 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c76a57a-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 11:58:45AM +0100, Boyd Roberts wrote: > > Lucio De Re wrote: > > No offense meant, but doesn't this show precisely what CVS's strength > > is? Had you recorded the fix, we wouldn't be still looking for it :-) > > Having used both, I'd go for /n/dump. Just to change the Subject: :-) On kfs? ++L PS: I think /n/dump is a great idea, specially as it is automatic and not subject to the vagaries of human fallibility. I can even accept that its positive features far outweigh its coarse granularity and an inability to mark files as members of revision sets. But if I had to add features to /n/dump (which is not a trivial task in itself) I would look to CVS for starting guidelines.