Danny Sauer wrote:

> Yup, I skimmed over that, mostly just making the assumption that the
> singular word "commit" in the context of backing up a version control
> system meant a sngle commit, not a whole bunch of commits over a
> period of weeks. :) No version control system replaces proper project
> management.  Which is probably what you said in the part I skimmed
> over.  :)

Yes... the question I addressed was whether the repository is in a
consistent state after restoring a backup. And I questioned the meaning of
"consistent" -- just because something compiles doesn't really make for a
"consistent state" from a higher point of view. Ask any product manager :)


> Eh, SVN came along so I stopped following CVS development. :)  The 'nt
> version looks pretty cool, though.

Could have been me... but when I had to make my choice (the last time), SVN
wasn't yet up to my needs. It may be now, but I'm not at a point where it
would make sense to switch anything. It's good to know that I could if I
wanted to, though...


> The Windows shell does suck royally, though (despite recent
> improvements), and they should stop saying they're POSIX-compliant when
> so many POSIX-y things just don't map properly. :)

Right... but whoever doesn't use the shell of his liking (on Windows or
*ix) can't really blame anybody else :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist