On Thursday 23 September 2004 12:02 pm, Brett Parker wrote:
HINT* - it *is* ready. *HINT* If the IT PHB has that little clue and doesn't even *TRY* new software before claiming that it's not ready then they *REALLY* shouldn't be in the job, should they. *AND* I would be very very very very suprised to find anyone that's run a serious cvs archive and *HASN'T* hit problem after problem after problem. Hell, just keeping CVS running for a large enterprise must be a job all in its own, probably for several people.
I am trying to keep out of the CVS-Subversion discussion for the simple reason that I have only had direct experience of one of these systems.
However
I (in a previous job) deployed several CVS archives (at a high point 6 simultaneous) for multi million £ projects, we had code that was ultimately so mission critical that the company would have vanished had it been lost or through an issue with the version control system access been denied for a reasonable amount of time.
I can't remember a single instance where a repository wasn't available to the developers for more than an hour.
Yes CVS was a pain in the backside sometimes, yes it is limited in some respects and yes we struggled so hard to find a half decent Windows client that one of our developers made his own http://www.tortoisecvs.org/
But ultimately for the company I worked for, CVS started a trend of Linux adoption that resulted in most of the companies core infrastructure running on it.
CVS has been used for several very large projects, I have no doubt that subversion is a better option today, and certainly given the task of providing a version control soultion I'd be mad to not even consider it.
But to say that it is impossible for a single person to maintain a reasonable size CVS repository is probably overstating your argument.