[cvsnt] Future of CVSNT?

[John Peacock]

Arthur Barrett wrote:
> As far as I am concerned the page is extremely even handed.  Many
> "features" of SVN in my opinion actively encourage poor Configuration
> Management and make SVN a poor basis for SCM.  

You'd have to be more specific about the features you object to before 
anyone is going to take your comments seriously.  Don't make the mistake 
of disparaging another project without providing reams of supporting 
details.  The website comparison is also not current with the current 
1.3.0 release; among the features now available are locking, ACL's, 
(hooks have always been available), etc.

> Finally, the SVN comparison page is not designed to reach "open source
> advocates".  It is designed to reach commercial software developers and
> CM/Quality managers who are reviewing different CM systems, and who may
> have received some disinformation about CVSNT.

But you have to be sure not to promote disinformation on your own behalf 
(which is what Bryce is complaining about).  In particular, CVSNT's 
"true rename" support is very fragile (it renames it only in the client 
and _only_ on _that_ client)!  I wound up renaming the file in the 
repository and updating all clients the last time I tried it.

On the other hand, the fact that *today* Subversion supports rename via 
delete/add-with-history and it works just fine, has nothing to do with 
the fact this is an acknowledged limitation that they intend to change. 
  I can easily come up with a comparison of Subversion to CVSNT which 
highlight SVN's strengths and CVSNT's weaknesses.  It won't be any more 
objective than what is currently on March-Hare's website.

Let's not let this devolve into "my tool is better" when both tools have 
useful niches that they can serve.

John