From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: errno <errno@cox.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 03:44:27 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-ARCH; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201104240344.27289.errno@cox.net>
Subject: [9fans] kfs and cwfs comparison
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d30ec588-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


Hello!

Question, regarding kfs and cwfs: why choose one over the other?

In other words, what points are important to be aware of when deciding
which of the two are more appropriate for any given new
installation/deployment? (let's assume that kfs's 28-character filename
limit isn't an issue, and that there's no concern for supporting legacy fs
formats)

Additionally, under what conditions/circumstances might either of those
two be a more suitable/optimal alternative to, say, fossil?

Thanks!